Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire

Justin justin-cypherpunks at
Mon Jan 10 13:51:06 PST 2005

On 2005-01-10T15:04:21-0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
> John Kelsey
> > >Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire
> > 
> > I just wonder what the false negative rates are.  Seem like a 
> A remarkable number of police deaths are 'own gun' 
> incidents, so the police do have a strong motivation 
> to use 'smart guns' if they are reliable.

The NJ law specifically exempts the police from the smart gun
requirement (which for civilians goes into effect in 2007 or 2008).
Regardless, the legislature doesn't need to get involved for law
enforcement to change their weapons policy and require "smart guns."

False positives may also present a problem.  If the only way to get an
acceptable identification rate (99%, for instance) is to create a 50%
false positive rate for unauthorized users, that's reduces utilitarian
benefit by half.

Batteries go dead.  Solder joints break.  Transistors and capacitors go
bad.  Pressure sensors jam.  This is not the kind of technology I want
in something that absolutely, positively has to go boom if I want it to.

For handguns, I'll stick with pure mechanical mechanisms, thanks.
"Smart guns" are a ploy to raise the cost of guns, make them require
more maintenance, annoy owners, and as a result decrease gun ownership.

"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free." -Heraclitus 53

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list