Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hardware That Recognizes You

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the access-denied dept.

Security 472

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."

cancel ×

472 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The problem with biometrics (5, Insightful)

Control Group (105494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734054)

The problem with biometric security is always the same: once it's hacked, you're Screwed(tm) (that's a security-industry technical term).

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.

ALREADY SLASHDOTTED (0, Troll)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734083)

Luckily for you, today I accomplish my good deed of the year. Here is a mirror. [lycos.fr]

Re:The problem with biometrics (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734119)

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.

People: did we learn nothing from the Judge Dredd film!

Re:The problem with biometrics (1, Interesting)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734404)

did we learn nothing from the Judge Dredd film

Yep.

1) Some of us (like film buffs) learned that it was pretty wretched and not nearly finely crafted enough, like, for example, 8 1/2, Rear Window, Fahrenheit 451, or 2001: ASO, to be called a film. It's more in the movie, or even down to the "flick" category.

2) Some movies are better left unseen until they hit the dollar theatre or HBO.

3) Putting a top draw star in a production does not mean it'll be worth watching.

I'd say some of use learned a lot from "Judge Dredd". Oh -- and are you sure you shouldn't mention "Demolition Man", with reference to the seen where the Warden's eye was cut out and used to pass the biometric scan? Or "Red Dwarf" where Lister takes the hand that was blown off a person to use for the scan to open a secured door?

Re:The problem with biometrics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734181)

>The problem with biometric security is always the same: once
> it's hacked, you're Screwed(tm) (that's a security-industry
> technical term).

As well as the situation where once it's hacked you're still presumed to be the only one who could have shot someone, say... once it's hacked you have no way to change your fingerprints.

It's like a computer on the net that gets owned and some haxxor gets in. Except when you clean up everything you still have the same password...

Re:The problem with biometrics (2, Insightful)

xThinkx (680615) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734222)

I own a gun for one reason, in case some one threatens my life or property in my home. As such, I'm really not worried about my gun being hacked, I doubt the burglar/vandal/rapist would think ahead to break in a night or two in advance and hack my gun.

Re:The problem with biometrics (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734268)

That isn't the issue. The issue is the burglar that came while you were out so you didn't catch him, but he stole the gun. Then he hacked the code and murdered someone. The gun is registered to you and 'only you can fire it', so you MUST have murdered this person you've never met, right?

Re:The problem with biometrics (-1, Troll)

BlackHawk-666 (560896) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734289)

Then you own a gun for the wrong reason. Police studies indicated you have a vastly increased chance of being killed with a gun if you keep a gun in the house. If you really want to protect yourself, throw the gun away, then you won't have a simple robbery escalate into a gunfight in your own home...you know the place...where your family lives. Your possessions are just stuff and insurance will replace them.

I keep a pair of trainers for self defense. When threated I am able to use them to run away, thus defending myself by using the other half of the fight/flight survival decision.

Guns don't kill people, people *with* guns kill people.

Re:The problem with biometrics (2, Interesting)

IWannaBeAnAC (653701) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734376)

Yep. In fact, in the Netherlands (for example), if you do anything other than stand back and watch as someone breaks in, you are more likely to be hauled off to jail than they are.

Not coincidentally, and quite amazingly considering it is the second most populous country in the world (after Bangladesh), Holland has a very low rate of property crime (except for bicycles - but that is really a special case in Holland!), and violent property crime is almost unheard of. Well, at least that was my impression as a foreigner who lived there for 2 years.

Re:The problem with biometrics (2, Funny)

da5idnetlimit.com (410908) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734231)

They seem to be much more advanced than you think...

from the Gizmodo article :
"including [...] the pommels of swords and stuff."

See...

They can make an electronic system that stops me from using my +5 against orcs broadsword, turning it into a -2 agains cops, unsharpened steel stick !

If they can unsharpen my broadsword in mid strike, they must have solved the puny details already 8)

And they said I should stop playing AD&D ...

Re:The problem with biometrics (1)

Sheepdot (211478) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734262)

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.

Actually, this is really getting into the realm of science fiction, but you could use a modified deck. If you think of your brain as an organic CPU that has emissions that let people pick up on how it resonates, you could enclose it inside device/skull that doesn't let this emissions out, or changes them based on a control.

It sounds ridiculous, but the patent for such a device goes as far back as 1999, and was a reissue of a 1991 patent. It was based highly on sources from the 1970s. So this isn't as far-fetched as one might believe.

Source:
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/p/brai n_1.htm

In fact, most of the patents in here are science fiction:
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/p/

The actual website looks along the lines of a new-age "tin-hat" website, but some of the technology described is interesting.

No way! (1)

nounderscores (246517) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734284)

No way! SCO had the patent on tinfoil hats way before 1991.

Re:The problem with biometrics (1)

Tenebrious1 (530949) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734286)

What is that the plot of the next Tom Cruise movie?

Re:The problem with biometrics (5, Insightful)

merphle (744723) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734295)

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.
There are three forms of authentication.
  • Something you have (ID card)
  • Something you know (PIN)
  • Something you are (Fingerprint)
From what I've read (Google the above terms, plus "authentication"), most people consider authentication based on any one of those insufficient. Authentication based on two of the above is generally sufficient, and based on all three is ideal.

Re:The problem with biometrics (0, Redundant)

arose (644256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734371)

And the last is worst when used alone and compromised.

Re:The problem with biometrics (1)

lifeblender (806214) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734340)

And what about events that erase or alter your own fingerprints? Baby oil or knife cuts and the like, for instance. The average person might not realize soon enough that that means they have to re-key all fingerprint-based locks.

Coool (-1, Offtopic)

sammykrupa (828537) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734059)

nice!

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734062)

fp

...That Recognizes YOU (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734075)

Where's the soviet russia joke? I know some troll wants to post one!

Re:...That Recognizes YOU (2, Funny)

madaxe42 (690151) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734115)

In Soviet Russia, YOU don't recognize hardware?

In Soviet Russia... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734076)

hardware reocgnizes YO--oh, crap

Bogus. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734082)

It's already been well-covered that fingerprint-based biometric solutions all fail in the face of some guy with a jello model of someone's fingerprint. Pretty pathetic in terms of security if you ask me.

On another note, Trollaxor has returned to Slashdot and has posted sdem's interview with him [slashdot.org] .

Re:Bogus. (2, Insightful)

julesh (229690) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734178)

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.

Re:Bogus. (1)

freeze128 (544774) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734204)

*You* try accurately firing a handgun while holding a gob of jello on it. Not so easy, is it?

More importantly... (1)

raehl (609729) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734345)

If you wanted to use smeone's gun, you'd have to now in advance both that you would need to use their gun, and what their fingerprint looked like.

for most cases where you'd have access and desire to use a firearm that was not yours, you most likely would nothave had the chance to prepare a jello mold of the owner's fingerprint in advance.

proximity. (1)

nounderscores (246517) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734362)

depends. Is the shooter sitting on the victim's chest with the muzzle screwed into the poor bastard's ear?

bit of slippery gel on the fingers while the victim struggles and begs might mean the difference between hitting the brain stem or just blowing the entire motor cortex out of his head.

same difference.

Next James Bond plot... (1)

mirko (198274) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734091)

Prisonner in a car, he's taken to Dr Evil's secret base.
He escapes by entering the secret ******** passphrase.

Re:Next James Bond plot... (2, Funny)

mykepredko (40154) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734179)

No, it will be more like the only gun he has access to is the one that is keyed to the 7 foot tall guy that kills people by twisting their heads off. While Bond is fighting this guy a security detail is coming to finish off Bond even if the big guy doesn't.

With seconds to spare, Bond knocks out the big guy, cuts off his hand and uses it with the gun to shoot the detail that has come to finish him off.

At the end of the movie, the big guy comes back with some wicked looking prothesis that is designed with the single purpose of eviserating Bond.

Hmmm... Maybe I've watched too many movies.

myke

Gun emergencies? (4, Insightful)

Esteanil (710082) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734092)

"But if we remove speculative emergency situations, the technology seems to be interesting."

And as we all know, guns are never used in emergencies...

Re:Gun emergencies? (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734298)

I've always been torn on this sort of thinking...

When I was a in college (in the US) I read that many gun owners put themselves in situations that were dangerous, just because subconsiously they knew they had the gun. I never put much store in it until a friend wound up in trouble for what was essentially road rage (although in 1985 it wasn't called that). I lived with this man for 5 years in school and I thought he was more sedate than I was, I was shocked to learn that he had waved a pistol at a man who had cut him off and then swerved towards him as the driving disagreement escalated.

I've since modified my pregnancy theory to: shooting a gun should be more difficult than getting pregnant, which in turn should be more difficult than solving a rubik's cube

Re:Gun emergencies? (1)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734367)

What you're saying is that if you can't demonstrate a basic level of intelligence, you shouldn't be able to shoot/own a gun or get pregnant. I'd take it a step further and say that if you're too stupid to care for your kids or respect the power of a gun, you should probably have your kids taken away and your gun can be used to remove you from the gene pool.

At least, that's what my scary, gun-toting, overly cynical co-worker says we should do.

Over-engineered solution to a non-problem (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734095)

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.

Re:Over-engineered solution to a non-problem (5, Insightful)

doppleganger871 (303020) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734152)

Yep. I'm sure there will be pleanty of illegal guns all over the streets of NJ... just as there are today. All this shit they do to with LAWS is meaningless unless CRIMINALS all decide to OBEY the LAW and ONLY use APPROVED guns to commit CRIMES.

"Oh Fuck, I have to reboot my gun before I can defend myself!"

Re:Over-engineered solution to a non-problem (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734197)

It will be even more interesting if the electronics fails the other way: Imagine an error which makes your gun shoot when you didn't intend it to ...

Re:Over-engineered solution to a non-problem (1)

B'Trey (111263) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734279)

Can't happen. The electronics doesn't fire the gun. It only locks the trigger, preventing it from being depressed. It's still the mechanical movement of the trigger that causes the gun to fire, and the electronics are not capable of creating that mechanical movement. Rather like hotel rooms with electronic keys. Once you swipe your card, you still have to grab the door knob and physically turn the handle before the door will open.

"It appears you are trying to shoot an intruder... (4, Funny)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734344)

The following wizard will assist you:
1) Enter BPA (Bullet Product Activatin) code.
2) Verify that this person is really an intruder.
3) Aim weapon.
4) Pull trigger.

Did gun fire? Yes/No
No.
5) Press Ctrl-Alt-Delete while depressing trigger.
6) Did gun fire? Yes/No
No.
7) Are you still alive? Yes/No

This is probably why Smith & Wesson and Microsoft shouldn't merge. :-}

Re:Over-engineered solution to a non-problem (2, Funny)

Esteanil (710082) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734408)

"Your gun has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down."

In Soviet Russia... (1, Funny)

goldspider (445116) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734096)

...nah, I can't bring myself to do it!

In Soviet Russia... (-1, Redundant)

ppz003 (797487) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734097)

[see title of story for punchline]

And when you're carjacked (5, Funny)

mdudzik (772902) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734100)

You don't get thrown out into the cold night. At least not all of you.

How about your partner? (2, Insightful)

3770 (560838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734101)

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?

Re:How about your partner? (4, Informative)

bje2 (533276) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734122)

if you read the story...

"By using a series of sensors along the grip, the gun can determine who is holding it and can even support multiple users."

Re:How about your partner? (1)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734170)

Just have RFID rings, changed daily so that TheBadGuys(TM) don't get them. any ring would work for all guns.

Or they could go one step further and go from smart guns to genius guns and use pubkey auth, each gun has all policeforces rings with an expirey date of maybe a week. Someone loses their ring? revoke the key. Each gun could sync with a device in the car.

Of course, then when the terrorists find a way to mass-revoke all keys in new york right before a massive attack..

Re:How about your partner? (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734174)

Where do you live, Falluja? Thats a highly likely scenario you just decribed there, bound to happen at least every other day of the week. Definitely sufficient to kill this biometric security idea stone dead.

I'm a bit curious about these disposable guns you use there as well. They become useless when the bullets runs out and cant be used again with spare ammo from someone else? Or do both cops carry guns but only one has extra bullets?

Re:How about your partner? (1)

magefile (776388) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734265)

Idiot. He's not saying they're disposable. He's saying that (in that situation) it would be quicker to grab your partner's gun and shoot it than to grab your partner's gun, switch magazines between it and yours, then shoot your own gun. It's a perfectly feasible situation.

Re:How about your partner? (3, Insightful)

sudnshok (136477) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734201)

The article said it can be programmed to recognize multiple users. So, I am assuming all members of the police force would be made users of all guns owned by the department.

And by the way... in NJ, the first state with an idiotic smart gun law, federal, state and local law enforcement officers and members of the armed forces and the National Guard serving in New Jersey are exempt from the law.

Funny, the technology isn't reliable enough for them to use, but it is for me. Nice!

Here's a good article on why this NJ law is ridiculous [popularmechanics.com]

Re:How about your partner? (2, Insightful)

DZign (200479) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734220)

I have no idea if this can be implemented or not.

Anyway, the main reason why this idea gets so much attention to become implemented, is that statistically a lot of police officers get killed with their own gun.

So someone thinks:
disable cop gun for anyone else => no more cops get shot

Stupid logic which will not work, but the weapon industry and their sales people have seen a new opportunity to sell a lot of guns to police forces over the whole world.

It only takes a little logic to consider that the first real problem is that cops should learn not to let anyone grab their weapon..
if they surrender their weapon to someone, it's probably because they are already under gunpoint..
and these bad guys prefer to kill the cops with their own guns as not to leave a trace.
Disabling cop guns may prevent a few rare kills but will probably not make a huge difference.. cops will still be killed, but there will be a trace of another gun so the detectives can do some research later.. (not that they probably will ever find this gun, as it'll be resold or thrown away).

So behind all this is just some marketing by gun-companies..

It can even get worse, I believe there are even prototype guns which don't shoot if they're pointed in the direction of the owners (he has a sort of transmitter in his pocked), so what will happen if the 'bad guys' can crack this code ? Robbers which become invulnarable because police guns don't want to shoot them..

Re:How about your partner? (1)

vettemph (540399) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734297)

So, ideally, all police guns should be able to recognize all officers in the same precinct or something like that. Yeah, that just fine until the battery dies. :)

Re:How about your partner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734336)

So lets say that the police force is equipped with this.

Along similar lines, do you want to be the one to tell NYC beat cops (to say nothing of colder areas,) that they can't wear gloves in January?

Yeah, but... (0, Redundant)

robertdh (162365) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734102)

...in Soviet Russia hardware recognizes you. Oh wait, nevermind.

In soviet russia... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734104)

you recognize the hardware! Oh wait... nevermind.

Oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734106)

Modders better put their flame retardant suit on for this thread beca... FOR THE MOTHER LAND!

In Soviet Russia (2, Insightful)

RangerRick98 (817838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734110)

In Soviet Russia, this joke will be WAY too overused for this article.

Re:In Soviet Russia (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734188)

In Soviet Russia, jokes abuse YOU!

Re:In Soviet Russia (1, Funny)

Jakhel (808204) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734229)

Article overuses joke!!

Various OS my fingkey!! (2, Informative)

lNxUnDeRdOg (825794) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734113)

The specs on this things say it support "various OS"...what is various by only M$ OS'? That's pretty lame...

Re:Various OS my fingkey!! (1)

Gallowsgod (766508) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734171)

Well, I'm happy as long as my M$ OS recognize my hardware....

"Various" versions of Microsoft Windows (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734383)

what is various by only M$ OS'?

Microsoft Windows 95, Microsoft Windows 95b, Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition, Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition, Microsoft Windows CE, Microsoft Windows NT 4, Microsoft Windows 2000, Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft Windows XP Embedded...

Dear Liberals: (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734116)

Please drop your irrational fear of pieces of metal. If you don't, we may have to live with Christian conservatives in high office forever.

Freely available passkey, hey? (4, Insightful)

FrenZon (65408) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734117)

... is one passkey I will not mind publishing on my webpage ...

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

Interesting (4, Interesting)

Guitar Wizard (775433) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734126)

I have always thought that a large-scale fingerprinting implementation would be helpful for a lot of things -- just think about never having to carry a wallet again -- rather, you would simply scan your fingerprint for whatever business you were involved in (making a purchase, showing proof of ID, etc.). A system like that would be convenient, but it's also really centralized, so there would definately be a "big brother" out there watching us.

As far as security goes, I would risk saying that is is much harder to dabble in fingerprinting than other forms of identity theft. If credit cards could be swiped and then authenticated with a fingerprint scan, I think we would have much less trouble with theft in that area as the technology to duplicate fingerprints doesn't seem to be widely available (how many people do you know who can do it?).

Anyhow, that's just my two pennies. Just hope that someone doesn't cut off your fingertips at night!

Re:Interesting (3, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734244)

Problems with fingerprint scanners are legendary, especially when your fingerprint is so easy to collect, glasses, ATM's, a handshake. There was a study not long ago on Slashdot that showed that about 90% of fingerprint scanners can be fooled by things like gelatine.

And you think the retailers would want to buy a big expensive foolproof machine for every shop in the world or just something cheap that can read a fingerprint?

It was hard enough moving them over to what we in the UK call Chip-and-PIN where we've done away (or are going to do away) with signatures and use a four digit code. That's been years in the making and still not completely functional. I can still say "Oh, I haven't been sent a number for that card yet" and they let you sign for the transaction, much like previously.

No, I still say the best system for things like credit cards etc. is to have some sort of graphical. When you swipe the card, the owners picture appears for verification (sent direct from the credit card company, maybe chosen from a few random photographs from different angles, clothing etc.) Much more big brother, I know.

If the person in front of you does not look like the owner, you refuse the transaction. Put this on top of things like Chip-and-PIN and signatures and you've got it made. Only an CC company insider could realistically beat it and then they would be accountable (I would hope that every account created had a traceback history for which staff member created it, one that is unwriteable after creation.).

If the retailer tries to run a stolen credit card through to make a few fake transactions, and presses Yes to ID the photo, there's always the Chip-and-PIN to fall back on that he must know. But it means you can't stroll in just any shop with a stolen credit card and take someone else's money.

Re:Interesting - Supply and Demand! (1)

Esteanil (710082) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734346)

As far as security goes, I would risk saying that is is much harder to dabble in fingerprinting than other forms of identity theft. If credit cards could be swiped and then authenticated with a fingerprint scan, I think we would have much less trouble with theft in that area as the technology to duplicate fingerprints doesn't seem to be widely available (how many people do you know who can do it?).


As fingerprinting becomes more widespread, the incentives for duplicating fingerprints grows.
At the moment there's very little demand for fingerprint duplication, but when demand rises, supply will follow very, very quickly, especially as the technology to do this is already known.

Calling all readers with mod points (-1, Offtopic)

PeteDotNu (689884) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734130)

I implore you to mod down anyone who mentions Soviet Russia.

Re:Calling all readers with mod points (2, Funny)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734173)

In muslim iraq, redneck invades YOU

Re:Calling all readers with mod points (1)

ppz003 (797487) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734189)

And you fell victim to your own calling... But so did I. Seriously though, why do the editors even tempt with a headline like that?

Re:Calling all readers with mod points (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734241)

Such as yourself?

Why does the name "Brian" come to my mind? :-)

hardware (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734133)

in soviet russia, hardware recognizes you!

Ring lock (5, Interesting)

RandoX (828285) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734134)

Another interesting option for firearms is a ring lock [smartlock.com] . It uses a magnetic ring to unlock the firearm, which keeps the weapon from being taken during a struggle and used against the owner. Since the decline in popularity in magnetic media, unpleasant side effects of wearing a magnetic ring seem to be less of an issue.

Sounds like a great idea for cops, though.

Re:Ring lock (1)

DigitalRaptor (815681) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734230)

I think better than a ring lock using magnets would be one using an RFID chip embedded in your own ring, which would authenticate you with a chip in the guns grip.

I'd like my car doors and ignition and my house to let me in based on this, too.

Re:Ring lock (1)

magefile (776388) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734294)

Erm ... ok. And what keeps criminals from wearing their own magnetic rings?

Cool! (4, Funny)

HarveyBirdman (627248) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734143)

Build a gun that only shoots robots and not humans, and we can construct Westworld! [imdb.com]

Well, we need fuckable hooker robots, too, but, hey, they're just around the corner.

Or they would be if the techno-wizzes of the world would stop mucking about with tablet computers and first-person shooter game engines, and deliver to the world what it really wants.

Re:Cool! (1)

Faustust (819471) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734258)


C'mon man, have you not learned anything in life? Fuckable hooker robots are the bane of human existence. It said so on Futurama.

If everyone had their own Marilyn Monroe-bot, everyone would just make out with it rather than go across the street to make out with Julie. It would be the end of the world!!!

Re:Cool! (1)

HarveyBirdman (627248) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734373)

C'mon man, have you not learned anything in life?

Yes. I've learned that I'm a man and sometimes want hot, wet, sloppy, screaming monkey sex on kitchen tabletops and over the hood of a car without having to deal with "you men just don't understand women" or "do I look fat in this?" bullshit. Sorry, ladies, but I didn't draw the wiring diagram for the male brain.

That fact that I cannot purchase hot monkey sex as a side order to my fillet-o-fish at any food outlet in the country proves to me conclusively that men DO NOT run this world.

I have a personal corollary to Clarke's theorem: any sufficiently advanced hooker robot would be indistinguishable from a real prostitute.

Hey, fuckable hooker robots wouldn't be as bad as a holodeck that people would walk into and never be seen again. It's like Scott Adams said in "The Dilbert Future". The holodeck will be mankind's final invention.

Smart Holsters! (5, Informative)

Zobeid (314469) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734147)

A few years ago, a prototype of a smart holster was shown -- it wouldn't let you draw the gun from it unless it recognized your fingerprints. Although this wasn't perfect, it seemed very promising, and it seems like an idea that many people would find more acceptable than smart guns.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is _151_25/ai_70380673 [findarticles.com]

Smart guns conjure up a lot of fears from gun owners. There's a fear that "smart" technology might be required on new guns. There's a fear that they might be too expensive, or unreliable (batteries gone dead), or that it might be possible to disable them remotely with something like EMP. Don't laugh, it's already possible to stop many motor vehicles this way.

Smart holsters could provide practically all of the same benefits without all the associated fear.

Re:Smart Holsters! (1)

doppleganger871 (303020) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734187)

The thing that bothers me the most, is that anti-gun people want this stuff (where info in the gun can contain personal information), yet, they don't want the same sort of tracking capability on the internet, or with their computers. Shit, I'd prefer to be anonymous everywhere, but it ain't gonna happen.

Re:Smart Holsters! (1)

Esteanil (710082) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734245)

Smart guns conjure up a lot of fears from gun owners. There's a fear that "smart" technology might be required on new guns. There's a fear that they might be too expensive, or unreliable (batteries gone dead), or that it might be possible to disable them remotely with something like EMP. Don't laugh, it's already possible to stop many motor vehicles this way.


I can't really see the advantages here, if a gun is potentially unreliable, a holster using the same technology would be as prone to malfunction...
And the people who fear these issues quickly proceed to the logical conclusion: Keep the gun out of the holster, or get an old-fashioned holster.
Right back to square 1.

What if... (2, Insightful)

rubberbando (784342) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734154)

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.

Bring on the Clones... (3, Funny)

KontinMonet (737319) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734160)

My (patented) self-cloning kit (instructions below) will break this security system in no time. In fact, I suspect MS are already flagging it on their all-new security alert system.
-----------
Self-cloning Instructions (Pat. pending)
Go fuck yourself.

MMwhhhaaaaaa.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734167)

In Soviet Russia, Hardware Recognizes You!!!

What about gloves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734192)

This assumes that you will never need to use your weapon while wearing gloves...

Thanks, but no thanks...

Biometrics are dangerous... (2, Interesting)

a_hofmann (253827) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734196)

The temptation is big: current technology will soon allow us to do any ID recognition by biometrics data with very cheap methods. This special application is just one of many examples where applying this technology would make sense.

The thing I dislike about any biometrics solutions is that in order for them to work, they need a method of identifying you as a person, Being that fingerprint, iris recognition or facial properties.

Thus every access to biometrically controlled systems allow a unique connection between your ID data and your person. This may be wanted in many situations, but with biometrics there just is no alternative to anonymity anymore.

The widespread use of biometrics will inevitably lead to the "transparent citizen" as the option of anonymity will just fade away with the disappearance of alternative identification methods.

Re:Biometrics are dangerous... (1)

steeviant (677315) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734303)

What I dislike about biometrics is the consequences of someone compromising the system. At the moment if someone steals my passcode or a key card I can be issued another one.

No one is proposing a method of reissuing retinas or fingerprints. If biometrics are used large scale and someone manages to make a fake eyeball or finger that can fool the sensors for a particular application, that information will be permanently useless as a method of identification, leaving the victim to suffer life-long consequences.

reminds me of ... (1)

subzero_ice (624972) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734198)

Judge Dred, the movie. Where the guns strapped each bullet that was fired with the owners DNA and nobody except the owner could use the gun. Fiction becoming a reality.

Re:reminds me of ... (1)

AugustFalcon (165801) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734410)

The Weapon Shops of Ishtar by A.E. van Vogt

Probably the first.

"speculative emergency situations..." (3, Insightful)

jstave (734089) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734206)

But if we remove speculative emergency situations, the technology seems to be interesting.

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.

"Various OS and USB interfaces"? (2, Interesting)

Carik (205890) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734226)

Looking at the Fingkey Hamster website, I see that it supports "Various OS and USB interfaces." Interesting! Must work on lots of different platforms, then... Where's the list? Oh... I see. They meant lots of Windows operating systems; Win 95, 98, NT4.0, 2000, ME, and XP. And it supports USB 1.0 and 1.1. Well, that's a wide variety....

Now then, what is this good for? Oh... "PC-infra security applications." PC-infra? What the heck is that? I would assume, based on the word-roots, that they mean security on one PC, but where did they come up with the word?

Between those, and the name ("Fingkey Hamster"?! Are you serious?), I have to wonder if these people are legit. They CERTAINLY don't have a native English (or even American English -- yes, they are different) speaker writing their text, but did they have to get someone who didn't know the language?

As a responsible gun owner... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734232)

I will _never_ buy one of these weapons. Also I will not support the company that makes these weapons.

Just as I fight as hard as one person can for my electronic freedoms and my freedom to own a general purpose non-DRM'ed computer. I will fight extra hard to make sure I can still defend myself without having to prove to some device I am who I say I am.

Just as DRM is a cancer on computing rights, these kinds of measures are a cancer on our guns rights.

Remember, DRM and gun laws (read "safer gun") is about their control and their profit. Neither of which benefit you and me.

Cheers!
--habit

How do you plead the fifth? (1)

vettemph (540399) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734238)

How do you solve the problem of someone forceing you at gun point to place your thumb on the sensor? If you hold encrypted data that you value and do not want to share, ever, then you may not want to use a biometric system. You might have the right to remain silent, but what about your right not to place your finger on the sensor to reveal your secrets? ... or your company secrets? ... or your MP3 collection? ... or your pr0n???

It's a little extreme but it could happen. I think I'll stick to passwords. That way, If i don't want to talk, I don't have to.

Re:How do you plead the fifth? (1)

Solder Fumes (797270) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734335)

Correct. It's easy enough to overpower someone or make them unconscious, even if they would not put their hand on the reader voluntarily. It's a little more involved to retrieve the contents of their mind, though with the right drugs and a skilled questioner it's possible. Again...just like with computers, the final line of security is physical security. If someone can get to the computer or a person who knows something, there isn't much stopping them.

In Soviet Russia ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734243)

YOU recognise har...

Nah, forget it.

Guns have to work (4, Insightful)

nels_tomlinson (106413) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734259)

Guns have to work, always. If you can't trust your gun to work, you might be better off without it.

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.

NOT a technology problem (2)

ForceQuit (307355) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734260)

Repeat after me: Gun violence is not a technology problem, it is a social problem.

Besides, its not like someone won't come up with an "override glove" or something...

Is it not enough that LEO's put their life on the line every day? Now they want to chip them like the family dog?

RFID chip (1)

quanminoan (812306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734261)

I think the best way to go about the gun security idea is a combination of biometrics and RFID chips. Why not insert a small RFID chip into an officers hand for the gun to read? could be used in combination with biometrics, where any positive reading activates the gun...

just a thought

Is this a potential image problem for NJIT? (2, Funny)

mykepredko (40154) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734287)

For years I've heard stories about how New Jersey is trying to clean up its image as a mob run, violent state and here's the New Jersey Institute of Technology working at improving hand gun technology?

My first thought on seeing this news item is that I didn't even know there was a New Jersey Institute of Technology, but if anybody would be doing research into hand guns, this would be the outfit. It just seems like an easy topic for a Leno/Letterman monolog ("Why did they choose the New Jersey Institute of Technology for designing the gun? Because of the opportunities for real world testing! Because shipping costs would be so low!").

myke

Bad, bad idea (5, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734293)

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.

In Russia,... (-1, Troll)

soulctcher (581951) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734301)

...IT hardware recognizes you!

This wont work (0, Offtopic)

piett134 (713199) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734307)

Hey, for all of us who have seen the "6th day", you know that this type of security can be easily breached.

Route 1. Blow off the fingers of the person you wish to impersonate, and take their fingers with you.

Route 2. Create a clone of the person you wish to impersonate, and take that person with you. :)

http://www.opine-it.com [opine-it.com] Do you Opine?

In Soviet Russia (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734339)

Hardware recognizes you, then calls the police.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>