Slashdot Mirror
Hacker Cracks Smart Gun Security To Shoot It Without Approval (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader shares a CNN report:Smart guns are supposed to be safer than traditional weapons. They're designed to only fire when paired with a second piece of technology that identifies the shooter, like an electronic chip or a fingerprint. Supporters say they could stop accidental shootings or misfires. And they've been lauded by law enforcement to prevent criminals from using stolen or misplaced guns. However, like any technology, they're not unhackable. A hacker known by the pseudonym Plore doesn't want to put a stop to smart guns, but he wants the firearm industry that's increasingly manufacturing these devices to know that they can be hacked. The model Plore hacked is called the Armatix IPI. It pairs electronically with a smart watch so that only the person wearing the watch can fire it. The devices authenticate users via radio signals, electronically talking to each other within a small range. Plore broke the security features in three different ways, including jamming radio signals in the weapon and watch so the gun couldn't be fired, and shooting the gun with no watch nearby by placing strong magnets next to the weapon.
Who didn't see that coming?
Oh yeah, fearful gun-grabbers.
I've long thought the two rather similar.
In theory, both are great ideas... in reality, no one can ever seem to get it right.
Don't worry though... THIS time, THIS time will be different! All of those previous attempts... those weren't real smart guns/communism!
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
"Mr X, this gun can only fire if you pull the trigger. You're going away for a long time."
"But I wasn't even in the city!"
"The gun says you were. GPS tracking confirms."
Or a smart mother for that matter.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
But being able to wear e.g. a different watch that jams all these guns is of course a much larger issue.
Issue? I would love to have a gun jammer in my car. Seems that these days, that would be a prudent safeguard.
The next step after smart guns is Cloud Connected guns.
."
The government could keep track of how much ammunition is used. This would provide valuable statistics for the department of the census bureaucracy.
Instead of requiring a fingerprint or gadget to authorize your gun to fire, you could authorize it to fire using an app on your smartphone. "hold on, just a sec, Mr. burglar, while I authorize my gun to activate . . . where did I put my phone . .
The government could revoke the firing of weapons that have been stolen. The government could also revoke the ability to fire any weapon to certain individuals. Especially crazy people. And crazy could have a technical definition, such as "the desire to own or use a firearm".
It's all for your protection.
Think of the children!
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
This hacker just demonstrated what gun advocates and critics of smart guns have been saying for years. The use of a gun is to stop a person or animal, often in a life or death situation. Guns are a powerful tool, and have historically relied on training to ensure gun safety and proper use. Smart guns attempt to take away some of that responsibility from the owner and in the process sacrifice key functionality. Guns have been developed over hundreds of years, and the modern gun is both extremely simple (relative to other technologies) and very reliable. As soon as you start adding other technologies, there are unintended consequences (or intended if you are a bit more cynical).
I am a firm believer in a constitutional amendment that subjects lawmakers first and foremost to their own legislation, and this is just another example of where that would be an excellent idea. I think that the every politician who voted to require smart guns who is armed, and every armed bodyguard that they have (all the gun grabbing libtard politicians are armed and/or have armed bodyguards BTW; classic do as I say, not as I do) should be required to carry only smart guns first and foremost. Tax dollars well spent in my opinion. That way they can experience the problems first hand (running out of battery or malfunctioning or being jammed by a wide band transmitter etc.) when their lives depend on it. After the first few politicians have their guns fail when their lives depend on it, I suspect their positions will change.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
You have to read very closely, but unintended fatal shootings in the US from 2005-2010 resulted in 3800 deaths, or roughly 760 per year. As a frame of reference, approximately 250,000 people die from medical mistakes at hospitals every year, yet there aren't any politicians trying to ban hospitals or regulate doctors.
Smart guns are a dumb idea trying to fix a problem that is much more effectively mitigated by proper education, training and proper storage of firearms (as evidenced by the fact that gun ownership is at an all time high, but accidental shootings are at nearly the lowest they have been ever). Smart guns tamper with and make less reliable the most effective self defense tool on the planet, potentially endangering the thousands of lives that are saved daily (every day hundreds of citizens use their concealed carry to protect themselves or others, and police officers do the same).
As with any tool in this imperfect world, there are accidents, misuse and abuse, but we must weigh the cost vs benefit of guns, something that the fascist progressives and Dims refuse to do (and have prevented the FBI from collecting statistics on; there is a very cynical reason that you can't find statistics on incidents where citizens save lives or property using their lawfully owned firearm, you can only find "gun deaths").
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Fired my first gun at the age of 9, owned my first gun at 11 and was allowed to take it out and use it anytime I wanted unsupervised.
Was taught some very simple rules about guns and have followed them my whole life, without exception ever.
1. Treat a gun as if its always loaded, even if you just unloaded it yourself, you act as if it is still loaded.
2. Never ever point a gun at anything you dont actually intend to shoot.
3. Finger off the trigger.
4. Identify risk down range.
There are more rules, but good teachers and role models make a big difference too.
And the fact that they lump in suicides with the larger gun death numbers.
Those should be weeded out, as that this person wants to off themselves, and would do it by most any means. It isn't an unintended death, the gun is working properly, but the method doesn't matter, it is what the person wanted to do.
I believe if someone wants to end their own life, well, sad as it is..that should be their choice.
If nothing else, it should be separated out as it's own number and not a wrongful death number.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
and I wish you'd drop the issue. We here on the left have. Bernie f'in Sanders got an A from the NRA.
Meanwhile it's being used as a wedge issue to distract you from economic issues. So you go to the polls and vote for the gun loving guy and he sells you out on the economy. How the hell do you think NAFTA got through? They knew the gun lovers would vote them in no matter what they did to the economy. Nevermind the fact that you and your little pea shooter of a rifle is about as useless as tits on a bull against a modern, well supplied military; 80s action movies to the contrary.
How about this: You can have a mother f'in bazooka if I can have Single Payer healthcare & college tuition for my kid. Deal?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If firearm safety is what you are after then proper storage and training would go farther than any smart gun technology ever could. I own several firearms and the safe they live in cost more than all of them combined. That safe is securely bolted to the poured concrete floor and wall of my basement. If you wanted to steal the contents you would need a forklift or thermal lance, which if you have access to those you would be better off buying your own firearms. Then there is the training, I've been through the standard firearm safety course that most states require for going hunting, back when I was younger I got the various BSA shooting sports merit badges, have my state's CCW license, and recently have become a certified range officer and instructor for BSA shooting sports. Almost every "accidental" shooting I hear about really should be called negligent. Even the case you mention was negligence as I would never leave my firearms where a child could get at them and that is one of the many things that is drilled into you with any proper training course.
Time to offend someone
But man..."smart" guns IMHO are NOT a good thing to have.
To the contrary, smart guns are a good thing to have, and the fact that they can be hacked is almost irrelevant.
The primary useful thing about smart guns is that they prevent your toddler from finding your gun and killing you, themselves, or each other. This happens all the time-- 1300 children get killed by firearms per year. (alternate source)(another story on the subject).
Even, if as you say "I mean, having a firearm that my life may depend on in a home invasion, that may not fire if I'm not wearing a watch" -- that's actually a good thing, because the thing that you should most be worried about in a home invasion is getting killed by your own gun.
Worrying that a hacker is going to break into your home, hack your gun, and then kill you with it is pretty remote.
You really want a gun that only fires when you fire it. A gun that fires when you don't want it to is not a good thing.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
How would a proximity control prevent a toddler reaching in his mom's purse and shooting her point blank?
I find the whole idea of smart guns mostly silly. Even plain old guns, brand new designs or designs that have been tweaked and fine tuned for 100+ years, misfire sometimes. Adding another level of failure is pretty absurd.
It's useful to have a background in error analysis. You should think about Type I errors versus Type II errors. A Type-I error, here, will mean the gun not firing when you want it to. A Type-II error is the gun firing when you do NOT want it to. For this particular safety mechanism, the type-II error can be considered to consist of the case "the gun fires when somebody else has it", and the worst-case type II error is "the gun fires when somebody else has it and is pointing it at you or your family".
It turns out that the cases in which the Type-II error will be deadly turn out to be much, much more common than the Type-I errors. There just aren't that many home invasions that are solved by the homeowner shooting the burglar, outside of Hollywood. For the most part, a Type-I error will mean that a piece of paper with circles on it will have fewer holes in it.
A Type-II error, on the other hand, means that somebody you love gets shot. You want to avoid that.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Most of the home invasions I'm seeing reported, the criminals are bringing their own weapons to the party.
And at the very least, shouldn't it be MY decision to make?
And..what about those of us with no toddlers or all children grown and out of the house...or if your kids are older and responsible enough they too can have access to said guns?
One size does not fit all buddy.,
My parents took me and showed me our gun (we only had one early on)....I shot it with them, learned how to chamber a round, how to shoot, how to SAFELY handle a fire arm.
They showed me where it was kept, and I also had the fear of God put into me that I never, ever, ever had a reason to get it or touch it shy of someone breaking into our house or threatening me.
Most of my friends were raised this way too....none of us would even think about getting that gun out to play with or even look at without just cause.
It so happened, that one day while I was home and both parents were at work...I think I was in 9th grade or so....it was raining and some bum came to the front door knocking on it...asking for drink of water, etc.
I was scared, but didn't panic. I went back, got the gun, chambered a round, and waited near the front door...till this asshole went away about half an hour later.
After that, I took the gun back to my parent's room, removed the magazine, took the round out of the chamber and put the gun together and back where it was supposed to be.....and promptly called my Mom at work to tell what happened, she and my Dad were very happy with my behavior.
So, are all kids today just too stupid for such training....or is the problem we have too many stupid parents today who don't care to train their kids or discipline them on proper behavior (not just guns, but most anything in life)?
Toddlers and babies are one thing, but young kids can be trained and you only have to secure things as age appropriate....etc.
Right now, I"m not worried about any of that...and I do not need a 'smart' weapon adding a new potential level of failure when I may need to kill someone in my home.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
In reverse order of stupidity of your post doctor's are highly regulated and banning hospitals would cause the death rate to skyrocket, not dip. What amazes me the most is that I don't even think you are trolling. You actually thought that was intelligent discourse and likely handle guns. [Shudder]
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
The NRA supports the rights of ANY legal gun owner to own or carry their firearms.
Really? Then why didn't the NRA have more to say about legal gun owner - and legal permit-to-carry holder - Philando Castile when he was gunned down by the police?
You can pretend that the NRA cares about non-white people as much as they care about white people, but the truth won't support it.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
My parents took me and showed me our gun (we only had one early on)....I shot it with them, learned how to chamber a round, how to shoot, how to SAFELY handle a fire arm.
THIS.
The key to safety is knowledge, not fear.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Good for you, but most gun owners don't. They say "I need a gun for self defense! A gun isn't any good if it takes me more than a few seconds to get to!"
Besides-- what if your safe malfunctions? This whole thread is saying "if my safety device malfunctions, I'm going to DIE!" So: safes can malfunction. You trust mechanisms on safes, but not on guns?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I have no desire to have a firearm ever present for safety. I just like to shoot.
And I shouldn't have to justify it, either.
Oh, admit it: Nobody wants "safe" guns because of the mandates stated above: that once on the market, even if decidedly buggy, would then force ALL guns to be illegal that weren't "safe" guns. The laws exist, it's not a matter of conjecture.
In the end, you're just hoping to use this as a run around to eliminate firearms altogether, because they simply make you nervous.
If you really wanted to end gun violence, you'd address the root causes: gangs, drugs-such as the opioid epidemic, criminal culture, etc. You'd address gun safety training instead of barring it as a bogeyman in schools.
The key to safety is knowledge, not fear.
The key to safety is knowledge and a healthy respect for the dangers involved. One without the other leads to mistakes and, since we are humans, mistakes will always happen. This is one of the many reasons why most countries strictly control firearms. It's not fear of them but a healthy respect for the dangers they pose in the hands of random humans who are sometimes drunk, forgetful, distracted, insane etc. While it's fine for you to suffer from your own mistakes and actions when firearms are involved it is usually others who do the suffering.
So you get a choice: either to restrict access to firearms or you learn to live with mass shootings, a high murder rate and toddlers accidentally killing themselves. "Smart" guns are just one way to restrict access so if you prefer the deaths to restrictions on personal freedoms you should be opposed to them. Just don't fool yourself that guns are perfectly safe and pose no risks to anyone. They are designed to be lethal and are only safe when handled correctly which is never going to happen 100% of the time.
What value does a "smart gun" add that can't be had with a safety and/or trigger lock?
You're saying the optimal proximity range would be about six inches, which means the gun in purse could still be fired by (ex. by a toddler rooting around in there). The simple safety is enough to prevent that situation.
Six inches would also mean that you couldn't fire it with your other hand, should that be necessary, so I'd disagree with that proximity setting. Making it large enough to fire from either hand means 3 to 6 feet, which means the gun next to your bed could be fired by anyone walking in while you're sleeping.
Worse, if you need a watch/ring/bracelet, you're unlikely to be wearing it while you sleep. And where do you keep it when you take it off? ... probably right next to the weapon.
Smart guns are also said to prevent stolen weapons from being used, but this article debunks that. A couple magnets and it's easier for the would be criminal to use than for the owner.
There's also a significant cost difference. You can get a master lock combination trigger lock for $13 (ie. no need for a key), and keyed ones are even cheaper. FWIW, I'm not saying that trigger locks should be mandated, nor should they be used in all situations, but, for the cases where you need/want to make sure that it's not used by someone else accidentally, they work perfectly.
Smart guns may have a place in some special situations, but certainly not across the entire market.
I like to keep my guns loaded, chambered and hidden throughout the house...where I'm never but a few steps away from any weapon that I can grab, and pull the trigger on (some do have safety on, but the glocks do not).
Sweet Jesus, are you that paranoid that someone wants to come take your shit? What is going on with you mentally that you have multiple guns, cocked and loaded all over your house? What is wrong with you, why are you so scared of everything?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
What value does a "smart gun" add that can't be had with a safety and/or trigger lock?
*Anybody* can easily turn off the safety.
*Nobody* can use a gun with a trigger lock on it.
See the problem?
You're saying the optimal proximity range would be about six inches, which means the gun in purse could still be fired by (ex. by a toddler rooting around in there).
Why would that be within 6 inches of the enabler?
The simple safety is enough to prevent that situation.
err... no.
Six inches would also mean that you couldn't fire it with your other hand, should that be necessary, so I'd disagree with that proximity setting. Making it large enough to fire from either hand means 3 to 6 feet, which means the gun next to your bed could be fired by anyone walking in while you're sleeping.
Ok... now I'm curious what your handgun stance looks like?
https://www.pewpewtactical.com...
Because it really shouldn't matter what hand you use when you are in anything resembling a proper stance...
https://assets.shootingillustr...
Worse, if you need a watch/ring/bracelet, you're unlikely to be wearing it while you sleep. And where do you keep it when you take it off? ... probably right next to the weapon.
I'm unlikely to be shooting while i sleep too. And I'm not sure why i'd put the 'keys' right next to the weapon, when im not using it. Sure some people would, but those people have a sticky on their monitor with the password too -- i don't think that's a flaw of passwords.
Moreover, I don't sleep with a gun by my pillow in fear of midnight attackers. That is simply not something I live in fear of happening, and it is simply NOT a use case that defines my requirements at all.
Smart guns are also said to prevent stolen weapons from being used, but this article debunks that.
not really. nobody thought it would be impossible to defeat the protection. And the deterrents to theft remain ... few people are going to want to buy a gun that is obviously 'hacked'; no legit buyer will touch it; and even criminals won't want the attention it might bring, or the fear that the hack job isn't reliable.
plus the first person I'd be worried about my stolen gun getting used on, is me, in the act of them stealing it... so unless they plan to hack the gun on the spot, it could save my life.
Smart guns may have a place in some special situations, but certainly not across the entire market.
I agree reliability is paramount. I concede it is another system that could fail. But I think in a lot of environements we could get the reliability up to the point that the rare failure to fire when it should would be more than offset by the benefit of it not firing when it shouldn't.
For police, for security, for home owners, etc.
Now I realize the police are dead set against it, and I respect that and understand why. But *if and when* the benefits outweigh the risks it will be rational for them to switch.
If the odds of being killed with your own gun by a criminal during an arrest/confrontation are 1 in 20,000 with a regular gun, and 1 in 200,000 to 1 with a smart gun; that suggests smart guns are worth looking at.
Now suppose the odds of a regular well maintained handgun failing to fire with good ammunition is say 0.5% (due to ammunition issues, mechanical issues, etc).
If the odds of the smart gun failing to fire due to electronic issues was 1 in 100,000; then it too would be dominated by the same issues as non-smart guns. so 0.500001%.
If we could get smart guns to that point, it seems to be a no-brainer... no? If not why not?
In an emergency, you may not be able to be in a "proper" stance.
Sure, you might need to fire a pistol one handed, offhanded, with your primary hand hand and one foot cuffed to a bedframe, because your home got invaded by armed theives while you were in the middle setting up some light BDSM with girlfriend.. could happen to anyone.
And because you are such an American hero type, you've been practicing that kind of shot too... so you might even hit what you are shooting at.
And there shouldn't be a law mandating seatbelts because you know of a guy who was safely thrown from his convertible into a bush when the car rolled off a cliff, caught fire and exploded as it tumbled down, and then it reached the rushing river at the bottom and sank to the bottom, right? Why he'd have been mangled, burned, and drowned if he'd been wearing a seatbelt. :)
The fact that you can come up with scenarios where a smart gun is bad, doesn't mean that its a bad idea. Like seatbelts, its a question of likelihoods and a balance of risks.
I don't think smartguns are where they would need to be yet. But I also don't think its undesirable or impossible to get them there.
Who was talking about "laws"?
The story in question was about guns that incorporate safety features.
Who was talking about "laws"?
The story in question was about cars that incorporate safety features. Nobody is going to force you to wear a seatbelt, dude. Nobody is going to make it illegal to disable an airbag. You're just paranoid, man.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I've seen every comment against smart guns so far only mention these radio signal, watch type systems, and seem to base their objections on that specific implementation. But is that really the only option?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I would think that maybe a finger print system would be a good solution. You wouldn't have to worry about ever losing the watch/ring/etc or not wearing it, using either hand would be no problem assuming you could have multiple approved prints stored in it, and it wouldn't be susceptible to this kind of hacking that intercepts, blocks or otherwise interferes with any kind of broadcast signal.
So the fact that this particular smart gun solution seems easily defeated doesn't look to me like any kind of definitive argument against the idea in general.