Slashdot Mirror


Encrypted Ammunition?

holy_calamity writes "A patent has been filed for bullets with built-in encryption. Pulling the trigger sends a radio signal to the cartridge in the chamber, but the charge only goes off if the right encryption key is sent. The aim is to improve civilian firearm security." Not sure I'm quite ready to trust the average techno-gadget failure rate on something like this just yet.

3 of 909 comments (clear)

  1. Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative
    To top it off, how is a radio signal of sufficient strength going to get past that much lead? And what's to keep a bank robber or other criminal to carry a small EMP generator to effectively disarm any cop whose pistol is so equipped?

    I will answer these very silly questions in order. (the other stuff, above that, was made up of good points.) First, lead? LEAD? You think the antenna's going to be at the end of the barrel? I think it's going to be wrapped around the ass end of the casing, or might even be the firing pin mechanism itself. Second, EMP? Haha haaHahaHAAHA! Do you have any idea how EMPs are generated, aside from using a nuclear weapon? You have a coil wrapped around a high explosive, you charge the coil with a lot of current, generating a strong magnetic field, and then you detonate the explosive. This causes the magnetic field to collapse simultaneously with the coil being collapsed, causing the field to fluctuate and move very rapidly through neighboring space, thus inducing the currents that destroy things. In part, it is similar in concept to a car's ignition coil. It's not something easily miniaturized, nor affordably carried.

    What IS an issue for concern, however, is the ease and low cost of building a HERF device. A low-power handheld HERF device was demonstrated at DEFCON, I believe, and was able to shut down computers from some distance.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Re:This could be bad by keyne9 · · Score: 4, Informative

    More importantly, "What happens when the Government decides you shouldn't shoot your gun?"

  3. Re:Please be honest: by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Informative
    Um. . . no.

    If by "no," you mean "yes," then you're correct! Crime per capita has nothing to do with it. It's the change in crime per capita and the nature of that crime before/after gun bans (or liberalization in ownership) that we're talking about.

    One year after a sweeping ban/confiscation program in Australia, they had these charming results:

    • homicdes up 3.2%
    • assaults up 8.6%
    • armed robberies up 44% (!!)
    • in Victoria, homicides with firearms up 300%
    • 25-year downward trends in armed robbery and homicides with firearms reversed
    and so on. This program cost Australia about half a billion dollars, and now many lives. Much the same story in Scotland.
    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.