5 ms·

I own half a dozen firearms and I wish smart gun technology worked. The main problem with RFID smart guns is that they can be jammed. If such tech was required

by chroma 12y ago

I own half a dozen firearms and I wish smart gun technology worked. The main problem with RFID smart guns is that they can be jammed. If such tech was required by law, any criminal with a jammer would create a zone where only they could shoot. This makes RFID guns useless for any sort of self or home defense. Likewise, police wouldn't be able to use them. There are similar problems with fingerprint reading. Reading a fingerprint isn't very reliable (dirt, cuts, etc), and the owner may need to use the gun while wearing gloves. On the sort-of bright side, unintentional gun deaths are only around 3% of all firearm homicides. One could save many more lives by further restricting handguns. For example: make getting a handgun more like getting a private pilot's license. Unfortunately, such restrictions are probably unconstitutional.

derefr 12y ago
> If such tech was required by law, any criminal with a jammer would create a zone where only they could shoot. I don't see why the system would do that. A "fail-safe" doesn't always mean failing closed; sometimes it means failing open. That is, if there is a jammer, then fall back to letting anyone shoot anyone, which is no worse than things are now. If there isn't a jammer, then let the law say who can shoot people. (Yes, then anyone can buy their own personal jammer to make their gun "work." People can also override those breathalyzer-meters that they have to blow into to get their cars to start. But, by-and-large, do they?)
- r00fus 12y ago
  Does it know it's being jammed? Or does it just think that there is no connection? Would "jam rejection" result in a lot of false positives where a reasonable time w/o RFID heartbeat results in your "full open" mode? Still sounds like a bunch of expensive security kit with its barn doors open.
- chroma 12y ago
  Nice idea, but how does one reliably detect RFID jamming? This isn't rhetorical. I honestly don't know the answer.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - lmm 12y ago
    "Jamming" usually works by putting out a bunch of energy on the same frequencies to overwhelm any actual signal. So, detect the overall amount of radio coming in, and turn off auth if it's too high.
    - orbat 12y ago
      But then you're left with a smart gun that's unlockable with a simple RF generator
      - lmm 12y ago
        Sure. So it only stops unsophisticated criminals. But they're mostly the ones that kill people.
johnny99 12y ago
Are you aware of alternatives to RFID that avoid the risk of being jammed? I have trouble believing Armatix would develop a version targeted at law enforcement without taking that into consideration.
- cperciva 12y ago
  Are you aware of alternatives to RFID that avoid the risk of being jammed? I think the usual movie-technology solution is a fingerprint sensor in the trigger.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    The Lawgiver gun from Dredd, which is one of the most influential examples, used grip sensors. It also tagged each bullet with the gun owner's DNA, which is in some ways an even more interesting idea.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
The right of the people to keep and bear arms does not specify that every person has that right, just that the community in general does. Having licensing requirements hasn't noticeably restricted the people of the USA from keeping and using automobiles.
- gnarbarian 12y ago
  That sounds like a personal interpretation as opposed to the judicial one. Which has been tested numerous times. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    The fact that not everyone in the USA has the right is pretty well established, such as convicted felons or the mentally disturbed. Also, there is an existing permit system in operation for extending gun rights, such as concealed carry. All a licence would do is codify an expected level of responsibility that already exists anyway in the laws concerning guns. Besides, if someone can't stay within the confines of basic range safety for the hour or so it would take to pass a test, then perhaps they shouldn't have a gun. I accept that the current legal interpretation is not currently in that direction, however I'll also note that it has changed several times and that recent court cases have come out against gun registration, but not as far as I am aware against a gun license being required for purchase, as you are allowed state laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
    - gnarbarian 12y ago
      The thing I think is funny about all this is people who wish to lessen our gun rights constantly talk about compromise but are never willing to give anything up. I'd be willing to jump through a few hoops to get rid of the Hughes amendment [1] What would you consider a fair trade for this? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
- 12y ago
gnarbarian 12y ago
We could save even more lifes by outlawing backyard pools. Nothing unconstitutional about that either. http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/wa...
- virtuabhi 12y ago
  Completely wrong analogy. You can kill other people with the gun you own, it is difficult to kill other people in your backyard pool. PS: Also, the numbers presented in the CDC link were for 4 years. The # of deaths by gun-violence (homicide + suicide by gun) in USA per year exceeds # of pool deaths per year by a factor of at least 20.
  - gnarbarian 12y ago
    I'm talking about accidental deaths. I have no issue with legal homicide (in self defense) or suicide. RFID guns won't stop either of those from happening.
    - Ygg2 12y ago
      True. But banning guns would reduce gun related suicides.
      - gnarbarian 12y ago
        Why does the mechanism of the suicide matter?
        lmm 12y ago
        Many people survive trying to kill themselves through e.g. overdoses, and go on to live fulfilling lives.
        gnarbarian 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
XorNot 12y ago
Is there any evidence that these can be jammed? Jamming something direct or near-field signals is a non-trivial problem. For a quick example of the difficulties, look up police radar gun jamming - because the punchline on that is that it's basically impossible to do.
- chroma 12y ago
  The simplest jamming method would be to emit sufficient noise on the frequency used by the RFID. I don't know why you say radar gun jamming is impossible. Jammers exist, but are illegal to use.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_detector#Radar_scrambling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_detector#Radar_scrambling
  - XorNot 12y ago
    Theoretically any signal can be jammed, the question is if its practical to do so on the necessary scale. Radar guns are notable because a directional beam can be much stronger for the same power then the omnidirectional jamming needed to defeat it. Moreover, most schemes to jam it can do funny things like indicate a higher speed or produce a good enough source the radar just tracks that instead. So 'jamming' is an uncompelling argument unless someone can show a practical, situation relevant jammer. Such a thing may exist for a smartgun - but its ridiculuous to let people throw out jamming as an objection to a specific technology, as it would be to throw out 'hacking' over some type of computer technology.

by chroma 12y ago

derefr 12y ago

> If such tech was required by law, any criminal with a jammer would create a zone where only they could shoot. I don't see why the system would do that. A "fail-safe" doesn't always mean failing closed; sometimes it means failing open. That is, if there is a jammer, then fall back to letting anyone shoot anyone, which is no worse than things are now. If there isn't a jammer, then let the law say who can shoot people. (Yes, then anyone can buy their own personal jammer to make their gun "work." People can also override those breathalyzer-meters that they have to blow into to get their cars to start. But, by-and-large, do they?)

r00fus 12y ago
Does it know it's being jammed? Or does it just think that there is no connection? Would "jam rejection" result in a lot of false positives where a reasonable time w/o RFID heartbeat results in your "full open" mode? Still sounds like a bunch of expensive security kit with its barn doors open.
chroma 12y ago
Nice idea, but how does one reliably detect RFID jamming? This isn't rhetorical. I honestly don't know the answer.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- lmm 12y ago
  "Jamming" usually works by putting out a bunch of energy on the same frequencies to overwhelm any actual signal. So, detect the overall amount of radio coming in, and turn off auth if it's too high.
  - orbat 12y ago
    But then you're left with a smart gun that's unlockable with a simple RF generator
    - lmm 12y ago
      Sure. So it only stops unsophisticated criminals. But they're mostly the ones that kill people.

johnny99 12y ago

Are you aware of alternatives to RFID that avoid the risk of being jammed? I have trouble believing Armatix would develop a version targeted at law enforcement without taking that into consideration.

cperciva 12y ago
Are you aware of alternatives to RFID that avoid the risk of being jammed? I think the usual movie-technology solution is a fingerprint sensor in the trigger.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  The Lawgiver gun from Dredd, which is one of the most influential examples, used grip sensors. It also tagged each bullet with the gun owner's DNA, which is in some ways an even more interesting idea.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

The right of the people to keep and bear arms does not specify that every person has that right, just that the community in general does. Having licensing requirements hasn't noticeably restricted the people of the USA from keeping and using automobiles.

gnarbarian 12y ago
That sounds like a personal interpretation as opposed to the judicial one. Which has been tested numerous times. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  The fact that not everyone in the USA has the right is pretty well established, such as convicted felons or the mentally disturbed. Also, there is an existing permit system in operation for extending gun rights, such as concealed carry. All a licence would do is codify an expected level of responsibility that already exists anyway in the laws concerning guns. Besides, if someone can't stay within the confines of basic range safety for the hour or so it would take to pass a test, then perhaps they shouldn't have a gun. I accept that the current legal interpretation is not currently in that direction, however I'll also note that it has changed several times and that recent court cases have come out against gun registration, but not as far as I am aware against a gun license being required for purchase, as you are allowed state laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
  - gnarbarian 12y ago
    The thing I think is funny about all this is people who wish to lessen our gun rights constantly talk about compromise but are never willing to give anything up. I'd be willing to jump through a few hoops to get rid of the Hughes amendment [1] What would you consider a fair trade for this? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
12y ago

gnarbarian 12y ago

We could save even more lifes by outlawing backyard pools. Nothing unconstitutional about that either. http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/wa...

virtuabhi 12y ago
Completely wrong analogy. You can kill other people with the gun you own, it is difficult to kill other people in your backyard pool. PS: Also, the numbers presented in the CDC link were for 4 years. The # of deaths by gun-violence (homicide + suicide by gun) in USA per year exceeds # of pool deaths per year by a factor of at least 20.
- gnarbarian 12y ago
  I'm talking about accidental deaths. I have no issue with legal homicide (in self defense) or suicide. RFID guns won't stop either of those from happening.
  - Ygg2 12y ago
    True. But banning guns would reduce gun related suicides.
    - gnarbarian 12y ago
      Why does the mechanism of the suicide matter?
      - lmm 12y ago
        Many people survive trying to kill themselves through e.g. overdoses, and go on to live fulfilling lives.
        gnarbarian 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

XorNot 12y ago

Is there any evidence that these can be jammed? Jamming something direct or near-field signals is a non-trivial problem. For a quick example of the difficulties, look up police radar gun jamming - because the punchline on that is that it's basically impossible to do.

chroma 12y ago
The simplest jamming method would be to emit sufficient noise on the frequency used by the RFID. I don't know why you say radar gun jamming is impossible. Jammers exist, but are illegal to use.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_detector#Radar_scrambling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_detector#Radar_scrambling
- XorNot 12y ago
  Theoretically any signal can be jammed, the question is if its practical to do so on the necessary scale. Radar guns are notable because a directional beam can be much stronger for the same power then the omnidirectional jamming needed to defeat it. Moreover, most schemes to jam it can do funny things like indicate a higher speed or produce a good enough source the radar just tracks that instead. So 'jamming' is an uncompelling argument unless someone can show a practical, situation relevant jammer. Such a thing may exist for a smartgun - but its ridiculuous to let people throw out jamming as an objection to a specific technology, as it would be to throw out 'hacking' over some type of computer technology.