Slashdot Mirror
Hardware That Recognizes You
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."
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.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
"But if we remove speculative emergency situations, the technology seems to be interesting."
And as we all know, guns are never used in emergencies...
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
This desire is only coming from those that believe American violence is caused by inherently evil objects: namely guns. This will do NOTHING to stop gun violence, but will make it less likely that a person could use these objects to defend themselves.
So lets say that the police force is equipped with this.
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?
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
In Soviet Russia, this joke will be WAY too overused for this article.
"You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
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
What if this is combined with RFID tags under a persons skin so that only 'authorized' people may use guns? If the people wish to revolt, a government could just send out a signal to take away any non-military personell's authorization to use guns and stop them in their tracks.
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
As the only security model they don't make sense.
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.
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.
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.
See what I've been reading.
No serious gun owner would want this. No police officer would ever use this. When you need your gun to fire, it has to work. There's no room for error.
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.
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... ;-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
The last thing I wanted to be is tagged like cattle.
Yes! We can then eventually use this technology for rocognizing everyone, particularly for financial transactions (buying and selling). Just think how hard it would be to give bribes or conduct illicit trade.
I, for one, welcome our new antichrist overlord(s).
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
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.
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 needs to be taken, you are ruining your own argument. If people took more care, they would not be getting shot with their own gun. If I take more care than the average person (I do) I will not likely be shot with my own gun. The problem with gathering statistics which reflect this reality is that the people who have been shot are either dead, or generally unwilling to say "yes, I am a fucking idiot who did not properly manage my firearm".
If an idiot keeps a gun in their home it is more likely that someone will die accidentally than they will be able to use it to defend their home. If an intelligent and concientious person does so, the opposite is likely true.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Consider your options in such a situation.
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 the wrong house, family member not expected home) and that you place yourself in danger. If you are incapable of moving silently through your house, or are inept enough to present more of a target than a burgler does, then this option is not for you. In order to truely defend yourself, possession of a gun alone will not do it. Possession of a gun, training, and an intent to defend yourself usually is.
The second option still relies on your ability to move silently through the house. If the intruder in your home hears you, or your children, in order to gain the time necessary to make their escape safely, they will need to subdue you in some fashion. Generally, this does not involve killing, but there is no guarontee. It also depends on a valid escape plan, potentially similar to your fire escape routes (second floor units or ranch style homes would seek direct window access out rather than through the fire in the main portion of the house, where the burgler would be). Note here: YOU ARE STILL AT RISK. Detection can be fatal, and instead of seeking out the burgler, now he would seek you out.
The third option is a valid one. However, it assumes that the burgler is not aware of your presence (expects noone home) or is not aware that he has been detected (expects you to be asleep). It assumes also that the burgler will not seek out bedroom locations for jewelry (valuable and easy to sell items for large cash sums), where they are typically housed. Depending on what you think your odds are of remaining undetected and the mindset of the burgler, this may be a valid option, though presents as much risk overall as any other.
The risk of death and other dangers is already present when you have an intruder in your home. Only an assessment and assumptions about that intruder at that time can tell you which of the options poses the least risk. If you are unwilling to kill to defend yourself, that is when the first option (defense) is a far more lethal route for yourself and your family.
The technology is not quite mature enough to be practical or reliable for many uses. Even worse, the novelty of the idea means the technology is applied inappropriately.
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.
"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 lethal defense (like a gun) to stop that attack?Money is your irreplaceable life energy in a convenient, portable form. When someone steals your money, or something you bought with your money, they are stealing part of your life. I applaude your respect for human life, but don't you think that since people's property is bought with their lives, their right to defend their property should be given the same recognition as their right to defend their lives?
User Training for Busy Programmers
If your life is more valuable than my property the solution is simple DON'T break into my house.
You come in here without knocking and you will die. People who wish me no harm knock at my door and are warmly greeted and INVITED in. Those who enter with a crow bar are warmly greeted with a .45 and will never here the shot that killed them.
If you want someone to care about your life then so some respect, and respect is earned not given.
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 that you will have to take action within a second or two. "Stop or I'll shoot" is for cops and TV shows; a private citizen in a legitimate deadly-force situation does not have to issue a warning -- you're not trying to arrest the agressor, you're trying to protect a life WHICH IS *ALREADY* IN EMINANT DANGER. If drawing and aiming isn't enough of a warning for them to get a clue and IMMEDIATELY back down, then you shoot to kill.
It should be noted that a weapon is never your first line of defense -- it's always an option of last resort. Your first line of defense is situational awareness: you pay attention to what's going on around you and identify potential threats, allowing you to avoid them if possible, and to give yourself that critical extra second or two of reaction time if you can't. If you've allowed yourself to be put in a situation where your only option is to use deadly force, you've already lost half the battle. To quote my old sensei, the only fight you truly win is the one you avoid. Unfortunatly you can't avoid every fight, so a wise man is prepared for that eventuality.
Owning a gun (or any weapon, for that matter) is a serious responsibility. If you don't want to (or can't handle) that responsibility, by all means do the world a favor and remain unarmed and rely on someone else to protect you. If you REALLY feel so strongly that guns are bad, I suggest putting a big sign on your front lawn that proudly proclaims "This is a Gun-Free Home".
As to your half-remembered statistics, look into the (flawed) methodology of the anti-gun "research". Every such study I know of has been discredited due to faulty methodology or fabricated data.
The simple fact is that most gun homicides are one criminal killing another criminal over some crime-related disagreement. The real statictic is that if you are an inner-city male involved in the drug trade (either as a customer or dealer), you are a lot more likely to get shot than someone who isn't.
Drug dealers tend to carry guns. Drug dealers also tend to shoot each other. Connect the dots. Who's at a greater risk of getting shot: an armed soccer mom or an unarmed drug dealer?
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?