… or, Trying to Profit from the Sandy Hook Massacre Makes You a Giant Twit!
Yesterday, Computerworld published a story about Safe Gun Technology, a company that has (allegedly) developed a fingerprint authorization system for firearms. The company has only been able to produce one working prototype in ten years, but now the Sandy Hook incident has given co-founder Charlie Miller a chance to hawk louder. Some quotes:
- “There was a zero percent chance of stopping [madman Adam Lanza] because this technology was not available.”
- “Our motto is … if we save the life of one child, it’s a miracle to that child and everyone that child touches.”
The company’s working prototype relies on a computer processor that Computerworld describes as being the size of a blackboard eraser. But even if the company can meet its promise to shrink the technology down to be unobtrusive, the core concept has a tremendous number of problems.
First and foremost is the weakness of current fingerprint identification technology itself. As the folks discussing this over on tech.slashdot.org point out, the level of sophistication available for a miniaturized reader/analyzer is pretty low. So either you’re stuck with having a “safety” that actually lets a lot of unauthorized people fire the gun — creating a dangerously false sense of security — or you run the risk of being locked out from your own firearm in an emergency.
Next are the practical issues that any gun owner would immediately understand. What happens if you’re wearing gloves? What if your finger or the sensor gets mud on it? How well does it work when wet… either because it’s raining or because you have blood on your finger?
Along the same lines, what happens if the system dies? If the battery runs out or the mechanism breaks is the gun locked up and unshootable? Shooters worry about small steel parts being too fragile! Now we’re talking about miniaturized electronics that will be subjected to tens of thousands of high pressure high velocity cycles.
Finally there is the physical performance. According to the manufacturer, the system’s fingerprint reader is in a “natural position” that you’ll touch when gripping the gun. Once you are authorized to shoot, you must maintain pressure on a separate tape switch for the gun to fire. As soon as you loosen your grip on the switch — whether due to dropping the gun, injury, or the tape switch coming loose itself — you must first touch the fingerprint sensor again before you can fire the gun.
Uncle Mike’s tried something similar back in 2001 with a fingerprint-reading duty holster. The result was so bad it never went into full production. Apart from technological difficulties, testers found that (a) a lot of cops wear gloves at various times during a patrol shift and (b) when you absolutely positively need a gun in your hand right now there may not be time to line up your finger with a small electronic sensor first!
Anyone who has been following along with the development of the Gadget knows that I’m the last person to oppose innovations in firearms safety. And I’m all for practical solutions that keep unauthorized people from accessing and using firearms in an illegal manner. But the technology needs to be one that doesn’t hinder the owner’s ability to defend his life when it’s dark, cold, wet, and he’s under the most intense physical and emotional stress of his entire life.
And trying to use Sandy Hook to drum up new investors is just vulgar.
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
(H/T to the folks at tech.slashdot.org)
My hands get so sweaty I often have trouble using touch-screen devices, like my iPhone. Something about the moisture affects the screen’s ability to recognize where I’ve touched.
I’ve never used a finger print scanner, but I’ve often wondered if my sweaty hands would cause issues with them as well.
I have no problem with this…as long as LEOs have to do the Beta testing.
the only thing that could ever possibly make sense is if you could have some sort of bracelet that were an extremely low power, very short range radio transmitter, and it were tied to the holster, not the gun. so long as the radio is within 3 feet of the holster, it’s unlocked. Or, you only unlock the holster when the hand with the bracelet gets close to it.
Even with my own ridiculous idea, I wouldn’t dare propose that anyone carrying a gun for protection (LEO or otherwise) be forced to rely on something that requires a battery. It’s 2013 and we still have standard transmissions.
The best thing we can rely on is the stuff between our ears. Knowing our surroundings, where our weapons are, and how to use them will always trump anything a mindless machine can do.
Ms. Lanza took Adam shooting, right? So, he probably would have been programmed as an authorized user of at least some of her guns.
To paraphrase TheYankeeMarshal, if people are a threat to themselves or others, they should probably be locked up somehow. Otherwise, stop infringing on their rights and keep your noses out of their lives.
Why not take Mr. Miller’s concept a step further and install the technology on the steering wheel of your car? Never worry about theft and it would assure that the driver has at least one hand on the wheel; no more texting while driving. Hate to have it fail while driving the interstate though!
Sounds similar to that Saw Stop jack ass that helps people that have been cut with a table saw sue manufacturers who won’t install his product.
Happy shooting, dv
I think you got 3 of the 4 letters right as to what they are…
I totally agree with this finger print technology. My wife put a finger print authorization scanner on the refrigerator and I lost 25 lbs cause I can’t get into it anymore. My computer has it and I never get any unauthorized internet searches by my 14 year old son. I like the car steering wheel idea a lot. I want to propose that once the technology gets small enough that a scanner should be placed in the breech of every gun. See…..once you load each bullet into your magazine, your fingerprint is transferred to that casing. The bullet is “fed and read” authorizing usage. Think about it.
In addition to the problems already mentioned, a firearm is a machine, a mechanical device, and the “safety” must be mechanical as well. It won’t be difficult to open the device and disable it. How hard is it to disable the trigger-safety on a glock? or the grip safety on an XD or 1911? You don’t have to be a gunsmith to pull that off. If someone who doesn’t have a gun obtains one with this system, how much trouble will they really have breaking the safety?
Well said Todd, very cogent comments.
Did you notice that in Skyfall in the scene in that Shanghai skyscraper (just after he gets his new Walther PPK with with a biometric lock) he’s alternately wearing gloves or not during the same scene. Conveniently when he needs to shoot, he’s got the gloves off. When he needs to hold the guy from falling, so sad, he’s wearing those pesky gloves. Apparently Q provided smart gloves to go with the “smart” gun.