3 ms·
Even if you put the locks on, they would never be used. If you need it you need it right now, and it's usually life or death. If somebody is trying to steal it,
by seabird 3y ago
Even if you put the locks on, they would never be used. If you need it you need it right now, and it's usually life or death. If somebody is trying to steal it, you shoot them. The last thing you want to be doing in a gunfight is fucking with a lock.
- EGreg 3y agoThis is a strawman All you have to do is have every soldier who is authorized to use your equipment unlock the vehicle through an affirmative phrase — and the vehicle can check their voice for instance, or other biometrics like their fingerprint. Or each of them can wear a beacon or smartphone which does that. Cars today open with you just getting into the car. This is easy stuff man
- kube-system 3y agoSolders in warzones frequently wear gloves, encounter debris, shoot guns, or are exposed to extremely noisy conditions, which would result in an inadequate signal-to-noise ratio for reliably and quickly sensing fingerprints and/or voices. They also tend to avoid unnecessarily emitting RF which would give away their position to enemy forces who have advanced signals intelligence gathering. Yes, it would be possible to do what you are saying. However, militaries find this undesirable because they find the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.
- mcpackieh 3y agoVoice recognition under combat stress? That shit barely works under optimal conditions.
- EGreg 3y agoNot true, now it is very robust
- mcpackieh 3y agoWhen shrapnel and bullets are flying and your nerves are completely shot, your voice wavering and you're croaking from smoke inhalation, do you really want to entrust your life to voice recognition? Come on dude, you're being absurd. We're talking about military hardware, not tech gadgets for your home.
- alistairSH 3y agoOr you're wearing your gas mask. Or it's cold so you're wearing a balaclava.
- kube-system 3y agoIt doesn't matter how robust it is, any voice recognition less than 100% reliable and any more expensive than $0 would put your equipment at an operational disadvantage when put on the battlefield against an opposing military with vehicles that exhibit a 0% rate of authentication failures because they lack authentication. There is no realistic scenario in which a military has lost physical control of the vehicle, and the situation is mitigated by locks on the vehicle. It is always already too late at that point.
- sleepybrett 3y agoI'm saying what everyone else is trying to tell you 'you have no fucking idea what you are talking about, you are trying to solve a problem that does not need to be solved, that no one has a desire to solve and is in fact not even a problem'.
- callalex 3y agoCan you point me to an example of such a system?
- alistairSH 3y agoevery soldier who is authorized to use your equipment You do realize that in a war zone, that list of authorized users can change rapidly (as people are injured, die, or rotated out of combat)?
- callalex 3y ago“This is easy stuff man” Let’s assume for the sake of argument that electronics are perfect, and never fail for any reason (including but not limited to battery drain, battery overcharging, battery age, heat, cold, sudden change between heat and cold, vibration, shock, moisture, dryness, flooding, corrosion, UV degradation, rodent infiltration, wind, wind containing abrasives such as sand and dirt, chemical exposure, fire smoke exposure, fire heat exposure, sabotage due to local exploits, sabotage due to remote exploits, etc.). Ignoring all those possibilities, you are only left with the problem of key management. You can find an overview of those challenges at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_management https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_management Managing secrets at a scale beyond people you know personally is extremely difficult to do correctly.
- jancsika 3y ago> You can find an overview of those challenges at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_management https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_management Not a big deal when physical security is provided at the broader level. For example, for any failed access attempt just fall back to TOFU. (Sorry, I'm just 85% sure the top-level ancestor is trolling and I wanted to help by taking it one level deeper. :)
- nerdbert 3y agoDoes not sound like you have ever been anywhere near a combat situation. You don't know who is going to need to be able to drive something at the drop of a hat. And the more fiddly and complicated something gets, the more likely it is to fail because of either technological or UX/human reasons in stressful situations. This would cost lives.