Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Encrypted Ammunition?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:32 PM
from the really-bad-ideas dept.
Security Hardware
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.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Encrypted Ammunition? 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Interesting. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Vo0k (760020) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @12:35PM (#15613420) Journal
    Do I have to enter an unique 8-digit pincode on the numpad everytime I want to shot too?

  • Can you say "war dialing"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 27 2006, @12:36PM (#15613432)
    So, the round is no longer fired via firing pin, but instead the gunpower is ignited by a device in the round after that device receives the correct radio signal.

    So, now your ammo will have to be protected from radio waves. And the device will have to be small enough to fit into the round yet smart enough to store the signal and check incoming signals.

    Is this a joke?
    • Not only that, the gun must know the clip order somehow, else rounds in the clip or your pants/jacket start exploding. At least with a conventional handgun, the bad guy has to wrestle it away from you. There are too many things to go wrong with this. I think fire control should be in the weapon (if at all), not the ammunition.

      The fingerprint system and the ID ring system are already working examples of "smart guns". One gun fingerprints you, the other makes sure you are wearing a uniqe ring with some sort of RFID tag in it. These seam to be as simple as an owner-fire-only system you can get.

    • Re:Can you say "war dialing"? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by airConditionedGypsy (703864) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @12:54PM (#15613608)
      My initial reaction was also one of "wow, that's stupid", but presumably the bullet is fired by a combination of the firing pin (so, the holder of the weapon still has control) plus the radio signal. So, I don't think that guns will spontaneously go off just b/c someone guessed the right key -- you still need to pull the trigger.


      Seen the right way, it's classic two-factor authentication.


      I am guessing that the "key or signal" is delivered from a device that is perhaps embedded in the handle to read your fingerprints, RFID tag embedded in your wrist, or some other biometric.

  • This could be bad (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BradleyUffner (103496) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @12:37PM (#15613445) Homepage
    The first thoughts that came to my head were these.
    "Can it be jammed so it doesn't fire?"
    "What happens if some random radio noise hits and and set it off?"
    "What happens if you aim enough random radio noise at say, an ammo supply room, that could potentially be bad."

  • You know... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cayenne8 (626475) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @12:37PM (#15613447) Homepage Journal
    ...I think that with firearms, this is the ONE aread I don't think I want any technological saftey restraints on. I want to keep it mechanical. I want it to shoot immediately at what I aim at. I virus, bug or whatever that causes firing errors at the wrong time can be a life or death thing.

    That and if this type thing is installed...what would prevent the govt. from programming no weapons to fire at THEM? I'm still holding on to a sliver of hope that a well armed citizenry is a slight barrier to a completely totalitarian govt. in the future...

  • Imagine the possibilities... (Score:5, Funny)

    by BigZaphod (12942) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @12:38PM (#15613452) Homepage
    ... for a lawyer after the bullet either A) doesn't work when it is supposed to in a life or death situation or, B) ends up working just fine even in a gun that wasn't authorized for it. Our society just keeps finding more and more interesting ways to keep lawyers employed!

  • Coming Soon!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by JL-b8 (862188) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @12:38PM (#15613453)
    DIY Linux server on a Saw'd off!

  • ...but hackers who hack bullets do!

  • have to provide a secure key to be hit by the bullet ?

  • Get Tough on Crime (Score:5, Funny)

    by joebok (457904) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @12:40PM (#15613476) Homepage Journal
    Since locking people up for violent crimes isn't solving the problem, I guess that a better approach would be to reclassify things like armed robbery and murder as DMCA violations - then we'd have the full weight of the RIAA on our side for a change...

  • Sort of misses the point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kohath (38547) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @12:41PM (#15613483)
    Why would I buy ammunition that's designed to fail to shoot sometimes?

  • Chris Rock is happy (Score:5, Funny)

    by ndansmith (582590) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @12:43PM (#15613505)
    Someone finally made a bullet that costs $5,000.

  • Are you sure? (Score:5, Funny)

    by saphena (322272) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @12:51PM (#15613579) Homepage
    Surely all that would be needed is a simple dialog box with [Yes] [No] and [Cancel] buttons over the question "Are you sure?", perhaps with a little warning about how dangerous guns are, every time the trigger is pulled.

    With a larger screen and maybe a soundcard, it could popup a paperclip asking "I think you're trying to kill someone, would you like some help?"

  • There's a better way... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kulaid982 (704089) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @12:58PM (#15613662)
    We wouldn't need ridiculous things such as this if everyone would abide by the basic rules of gun safety. My grandfather taught me these when I was 4 years old:
     
    1. Handle every gun as though it were loaded, even if you KNOW it's not.
      2. Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction - down range, at your target, or down into the ground.
      3. Always keep the safety "on" until you are ready to shoot.
      4. Don't shoot at anything unless you intend it to die.
      5. Don't store guns loaded.
      6. Teach your children respect for guns and what they can do.
     
      I really think that rule 6 is the most important. I'm not saying following these rules would cure all accidental discharges, but it sure wouldn't increase the number of tragic accidents that occur.

  • I'm not a fan of the NRA, but (Score:5, Insightful)

    by realmolo (574068) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @01:11PM (#15613803)
    This is something they should be using their lobbying power to stop.

    "Gun safety" is fine, but how long would it be until the U.S. government started requiring this in all firearms? And, of course, they would have all the encryption keys. And, of course, they would know how to JAM the signals.

    A lot of the reason we have a "right to bear arms" is so that we can fight the tyranny of our OWN government, if we need to. This technology would allow us to maintain that right, but make it completely ineffectual.

    • Re: Bullet encryption (Score:5, Funny)

      by cmdr_beeftaco (562067) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @12:40PM (#15613478)
      Does this mean that the NSA will be able to automatically fire my guns? Don't get me wrong, I like that idea, I just want to know ahead of time.

      • Re: Bullet encryption (Score:5, Funny)

        by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @01:03PM (#15613719)
        No, it means you have to publish your public key and make it available to the game you shoot.
        Just print it out base-64 encoded and nail it to trees in the area so that the deer can be sure that it's you shooting them and not someone else.

      • Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Odin_Tiger (585113) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @12:57PM (#15613651) Journal
        I'd speculate that the idea is going to be more along the lines of only allowing certain bullet types to be fired from certain guns by certain people. For instance, a round specially designed for military or police use could only be fired by a military / police gun, and only if the gun was being operated by a soldier / police officer. Perhaps a 2nd transmitter in a wrist band or ring on a finger, so there are 2 stages of security. Ring ID's with gun ID's with bullet. That way, in the course of an investigation, they could use standard forensics to determine that a certain bullet was fired from a certain gun, and from there have a high level of certainty that the bullet was fired by the officer assigned to that gun.

      • Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:5, Funny)

        by pilgrim23 (716938) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @12:59PM (#15613674)
        A whole new meaning to the Blue Screen fo Death....

      • Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by tehwebguy (860335) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @01:01PM (#15613693) Homepage
        "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?"

        rofl what about the other way?

        eventually we may have to worry about a criminal throwing a radio device that brute forces all the weapons in a certain radius into a secure area -- discharging every officer's weapon in the building.

        actually i'm sure this won't be possible but it would make a cool scene in an action movie..

        • Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by pclminion (145572) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @01:12PM (#15613821)

          eventually we may have to worry about a criminal throwing a radio device that brute forces all the weapons in a certain radius into a secure area -- discharging every officer's weapon in the building.

          Well, the signal is supposedly encrypted so that it can't be triggered by an outside party. But that doesn't mean some outside party couldn't just broadcast a very strong NOISE signal (aka, jamming) on the same frequency, thereby disabling any gun within a few hundred feet.

          The ability to disarm every cop in the building with the push of a button. Yeah, this is a great idea!

    • Ban objects! People are fine. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScentCone (795499) on Tuesday June 27 2006, @01:01PM (#15613698)
      Whatever happened to "putting up your dukes".

      Putting up your dukes isn't very helpful against knives, or cricket bats, or just someone who is a lot larger or more drunk than you are.

      Ever occurred to you that perhaps it's cultural? I suppose someone in your neck of the woods has decided so - I mean, if your folks can't manage to just go watch a sporting event without assaulting one another [blackpooltoday.co.uk], then I suppose it makes sense that your medical community thinks that the only cure for violence is to ban objects, rather than holding people truly responsible for their actions. You know, we can't have Brits owning kitchen knives [bbc.co.uk], now, can we? After all, the only way to prevent someone from being stabbed is to ban them entirely, right?

    • Re:sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NetJunkie (56134) <jason.nash@NOsPAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday June 27 2006, @01:06PM (#15613753)
      Deal! But.... everytime a kid is killed by a drunk driver you have to raise taxes on cars. If a kid meets someone on MySpace and gets assaulted you have to pay more tax on your computer purchases. Then we'll all work together to tighten up control!

      Sorry. A gun is a tool. Just like any other tool. If I hit you with a bat it doesn't mean bats need to be taxed more.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.