Biometrics and guns

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

But that's an opinion few are likely to share...

Why does that matter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

...and another example of how "freedom" can harm people.

Nice use of scare quotes. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

So do you admit that you believe auto manufacturers should have the right not to install seat belts, and car owners should have the right to remove them? I assume you believe gun manufacturers should never be required to install any safety equipment.

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Anyway, I think the hardcore Libertanarchists are outliers.

Probably true, but irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

I just really want to understand how hardcore you are. Kinda similar to religious fundies as insane as Westboro Baptist. Damn the consequences, 100% freedom, or nothing!

I see, so now you're moving onto ad hominem. Got it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

But that's an opinion few are likely to share...

 

Why does that matter?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

...and another example of how "freedom" can harm people.

 

Nice use of scare quotes. 

So do you admit that you believe auto manufacturers should have the right not to install seat belts, and car owners should have the right to remove them? I assume you believe gun manufacturers should never be required to install any safety equipment.

 

Anyway, I think the hardcore Libertanarchists are outliers. I just really want to understand how hardcore you are. Kinda similar to religious fundies as insane as Westboro Baptist. Damn the consequences, 100% freedom, or nothing!

 

Anyway, besides MJ and Jazzguru, does anyone think mandated biometric triggers aren't a good idea, and striving to make the technology viable isn't a good idea, in the interest of safety?

It might be a cool idea, but I cannot imagine how one might implement such a thing in a purely mechanical device such as a gun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

It might be a cool idea, but I cannot imagine how one might implement such a thing in a purely mechanical device such as a gun.

Aha... but why must a gun be purely mechanical? The first iPods had purely mechanical buttons and scroll wheels. Cars used to be purely mechanical. Can anyone imagine a car without a computer?

A reasonable question, but I would argue that your analogies are poor. The first iPods may have had mechanical switches, but they were already controlling solid state circuitry. Cars were already complex pieces of equipment that benefitted from computerized control, so the evolution was natural and brought commercial advantage.

On the other hand, I see no commercial benefit to adding a processor to a gun - it would just be an access control mechanism requiring a complete redesign of the device, and bringing significant use issues, such as wearing gloves, and concerns over whether it will actually work when you need it. I regularly use biometric authentication devices, and often need to try a couple of times to be recognized. No big deal when trying to access a secure area, but not always an acceptable situation when you need to fire your weapon now.

I'll turn your last question around - can anyone imagine a pair of scissors with a computer?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Thoughts?

I'm sure Jazzy and MJ think auto manufacturers SHOULD have the freedom not to install seat belts, and drivers should have the freedom to remove them. But that's an opinion few are likely to share, and another example of how "freedom" can harm people.

Are you really interested in hearing my opinion? Because you seem to be quite content to tell everyone else what you think it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Anyway, besides MJ and Jazzguru, does anyone think mandated biometric triggers aren't a good idea, and striving to make the technology viable isn't a good idea, in the interest of safety?

I guess that answers my question.

Have a nice day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

If we can somehow integrate biometric trigger technology into the trigger mechanism -- not a removable trigger lock -- I believe this could be the solution we all are looking for. We could keep our guns and we would also have some protection against theft, accidental discharge by children, suicide by someone other than the owner, and the discharge of stolen firearms in the commission of a crime. Seriously, is there any reason NOT to move in this direction? I believe this is part of what Obama was referring to when he ordered manufacturers to challenge themselves to incorporate new safety technologies.

It won't work because every technology out there has been hacked at some point with regard to security. If you can design a biometric scanner that can fit in a trigger, then you can design a biometric skimmer that can overcome the former.

Please don't argue that my solution can't be created because you are already asking us to engage in conjecture about biometric triggers in the first place. Criminals don't respect laws, locks or anything else that keeps them from committing their crimes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

You ignore the fact that this solution would completely eliminate the problem of kids using parents' guns, a gun used in self defense being turned on the owner, even a relative "borrowing" a gun for a convenient suicide.

Not to mention that the local liquor store meth head won't have access to that technology any more than he would have access to a forensic hard drive reader to hack a well protected PC.

I'm sorry but the point is you can't just imagine a new technology and declare it will only be used in the manner in which you insist it be used. This is especially true when history shows us the exact opposite. You are asking us to imagine a technology that is currently very expensive and very large scaled to the point where it fits inside a trigger adds minor cost increases. I'm simply saying that in such a world, a device that can feed that trigger the information and is a millimeter thick and also cheap will also be available. The meth head can steal the gloves that do this to get access to what he wants, the gun. The higher ups in the gangs can give the kids the gloves just like they give them the bolt cutters or car theft tools and tell them to go steal bikes or cars right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Look at the seat belt analogy. Biometric triggers won't stop guns being used by someone other than the registered owner any more than seatbelts stop car accidents. But they would sure cut down on deaths and violence.

No they wouldn't. Can you name a single technology so far that has eliminated a particular crime? I just imagined the counter-effect and you simply declare it won't be available or widely spread in the same world where there are $5 biometric scanners with the thinness of a trigger and 100% accuracy.

Now let's talk about another unintended consequence of your reasoning, MORE GUNS. Suppose I'm a law abiding citizen in a world where I want my child to learn to use a firearm properly. Right now in many states there are laws about ownership and possession of guns below the age of 18 but not about firing them because you have to be able to learn about them just like how you learn to drive a car, etc.

So do I now have to purchase, but retain possession of a gun with a biometric trigger set exclusive to the finger of each child who wants to learn to shoot? If the trigger can be turned off by the owner than won't a criminal find a way around that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

You ignore the fact that this solution would completely eliminate the problem of kids using parents' guns, a gun used in self defense being turned on the owner, even a relative "borrowing" a gun for a convenient suicide.

Not to mention that the local liquor store meth head won't have access to that technology any more than he would have access to a forensic hard drive reader to hack a well protected PC.

 

I'm sorry but the point is you can't just imagine a new technology and declare it will only be used in the manner in which you insist it be used. This is especially true when history shows us the exact opposite. You are asking us to imagine a technology that is currently very expensive and very large scaled to the point where it fits inside a trigger adds minor cost increases. I'm simply saying that in such a world, a device that can feed that trigger the information and is a millimeter thick and also cheap will also be available. The meth head can steal the gloves that do this to get access to what he wants, the gun. The higher ups in the gangs can give the kids the gloves just like they give them the bolt cutters or car theft tools and tell them to go steal bikes or cars right now.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Look at the seat belt analogy. Biometric triggers won't stop guns being used by someone other than the registered owner any more than seatbelts stop car accidents. But they would sure cut down on deaths and violence.

 

No they wouldn't. Can you name a single technology so far that has eliminated a particular crime? I just imagined the counter-effect and you simply declare it won't be available or widely spread in the same world where there are $5 biometric scanners with the thinness of a trigger and 100% accuracy.

 

Now let's talk about another unintended consequence of your reasoning, MORE GUNS. Suppose I'm a law abiding citizen in a world where I want my child to learn to use a firearm properly. Right now in many states there are laws about ownership and possession of guns below the age of 18 but not about firing them because you have to be able to learn about them just like how you learn to drive a car, etc.

 

So do I now have to purchase, but retain possession of a gun with a biometric trigger set exclusive to the finger of each child who wants to learn to shoot? If the trigger can be turned off by the owner than won't a criminal find a way around that?

While the idea is impractical for many reasons, most of the arguments that you made are flawed. Technologies, or any other kind of measure, are not intended to eliminate crimes (or accidents) - they are intended to reduce them. Take banks, for example. Banks still get robbed, but, despite that, we keep our money there because it is still more secure than stacking it under the porch. Seat belts and air bags do not eliminate, they reduce, deaths and injury severity in automobile accidents. You seem to be using the same old argument that if a measure is not 100% effective then it should not be used, and where tonton says above that it would "reduce", you respond that he is wrong because it would not "eliminate". Was that an intentional straw man?

You actually picked on a bad example. Don't believe what you see in the movies. The problem with biometric authentication is not that it is easily defeated - it's really quite secure - the problem is that a consequence of its reliability is that it is not always fast. False negatives are an issue. It's not a solution here for many other reasons too: one, that you pointed out, is cost, and then there is the problem that it is not going to be retrofitted to existing weapons. It would make far more sense just to require owners to secure their weapons in locked safes or cabinets.

It's hard to believe that you are not just being disingenuous with the "more guns" argument - if such technology were ever implemented then it would be trivial to allow a weapon to be authorized by a superuser (permanently or temporarily) for more than one user as needed. Would that be exploitable or bypassable? Probably, just like a bank security system can be defeated with the right knowledge and tools. Does that, alone, make it pointless? Of course not. It probably would nearly eliminate incidents of kids stealing and using their parents guns though - the assertion above that you took issue with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

While the idea is impractical for many reasons, most of the arguments that you made are flawed. Technologies, or any other kind of measure, are not intended to eliminate crimes (or accidents) - they are intended to reduce them. Take banks, for example. Banks still get robbed, but, despite that, we keep our money there because it is still more secure than stacking it under the porch. Seat belts and air bags do not eliminate, they reduce, deaths and injury severity in automobile accidents. You seem to be using the same old argument that if a measure is not 100% effective then it should not be used, and where tonton says above that it would "reduce", you respond that he is wrong because it would not "eliminate". Was that an intentional straw man?

 

You actually picked on a bad example. Don't believe what you see in the movies. The problem with biometric authentication is not that it is easily defeated - it's really quite secure - the problem is that a consequence of its reliability is that it is not always fast. False negatives are an issue. It's not a solution here for many other reasons too: one, that you pointed out, is cost, and then there is the problem that it is not going to be retrofitted to existing weapons. It would make far more sense just to require owners to secure their weapons in locked safes or cabinets.

 

It's hard to believe that you are not just being disingenuous with the "more guns" argument - if such technology were ever implemented then it would be trivial to allow a weapon to be authorized by a superuser (permanently or temporarily) for more than one user as needed. Would that be exploitable or bypassable? Probably, just like a bank security system can be defeated with the right knowledge and tools. Does that, alone, make it pointless? Of course not. It probably would nearly eliminate incidents of kids stealing and using their parents guns though - the assertion above that you took issue with.

I'm going to radically disagree. How can they be flawed when we are talking about conjecture about the future and technology? Your counter argument amounts to, "They won't be able to make that though?" You mention the bank robbery as an example. Banks have had to set up fraud prevention services, do spending profiles on their customers and they often automatically call them if something outside of their spending norms occurs. This is now a secondary level of security on top of the primary level of security because of things like card skimmers.

In the past the bank robber had to walk in with guns blazing and demand you fill a sack with money. Now someone can crack one database, grab a million credit card numbers and ping each one for a dollar hoping it is never noticed. The card skimming is the new bank robbing in the modern day. A person like yourself or Tonton might say that the cards have to read, that a pin has to be entered and that the technology to copy this information has to be thin, cheap and somehow sit on top of the real deal. It's here. It exists.

As for not believing what I see in the movies, we are being asked to engage in conjecture along the lines of things that we see in the movies. We are being asked to believe that a solution has been designed that will authenticate you in a biometric manner that is as thin as a trigger, one hundred percent accurate and operates at speed indistinguishable from the old solution with no scanner. Does that exist in the real world in any form or fashion? It doesn't. It is a solution straight out of the movies as well. I'm simply imaging the counter-measure to it.

It is claimed that this will solve a problem. I suggest it will merely shift the problem. Here is another example of that. It was noted it might solve the problem of guns being used for suicides. Kids could not go find a gun in their house and use it to kill themselves. Well the suicide rate in Japan is MUCH higher than in the U.S. and they have very stringent gun control. Yet their suicide rate is double that of the United States even with almost no guns available. Removing guns didn't remove suicide there. It just caused people to jump in front of trains, hang themselves, overdose, etc.

You mention gun security and administration levels, etc. Again if anyone would know how to exploit this or even socially engineer around it, it would be the kids. It is the kids often helping the adults, not the other way around. Ask many adults if they set up their wifi router or if the kids handled it.

Many of these massacres have occurred from people who seem exceptionally bright but troubled. That means they are bright enough to get around these software solutions.

I'll use an analogous example for how the layperson might not be able to understand the technology or defeat it but they just go find someone shady who does for cheap. Most people I encounter barely understand that their cell phone is often sim locked here in the U.S. That doesn't mean that a quick search on Craigslist won't turn up dozens of ads for people who will unlock a phone for $10-20 including iPhones. Do most people know how to flash a phone from one carrier to another like from Sprint to Verizon, etc. Such a "service" is "necessary" when a ESN number has been blocked because the phone has been reported stolen. No problem though, a friendly person will meet with you in Starbucks, bring their laptop and flash your phone for $30.

I'm supposed to believe that when I can find ads for people who will root my cell phone, flash it to another provider, add custom roms or "stores" that download "free" apps, etc that this wouldn't happen to a gun?

Instead I imagine the opposite because that is what I have seen in technology my whole life. You imagine a world where no one can defeat the superuser administration to gain access to a gun. I imagine a world where such services pop up using slang on Craigslist for $20 and for an extra $10 they will install the fully automatic firing "mod" and large clip "mod" as well. You imagine a world where encryption on DVDs meant no one ever stole a movie again. I imagine a world where moms have their teenagers teaching them how to torrent the shows they missed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

While the idea is impractical for many reasons, most of the arguments that you made are flawed. Technologies, or any other kind of measure, are not intended to eliminate crimes (or accidents) - they are intended to reduce them. Take banks, for example. Banks still get robbed, but, despite that, we keep our money there because it is still more secure than stacking it under the porch. Seat belts and air bags do not eliminate, they reduce, deaths and injury severity in automobile accidents. You seem to be using the same old argument that if a measure is not 100% effective then it should not be used, and where tonton says above that it would "reduce", you respond that he is wrong because it would not "eliminate". Was that an intentional straw man?

 

You actually picked on a bad example. Don't believe what you see in the movies. The problem with biometric authentication is not that it is easily defeated - it's really quite secure - the problem is that a consequence of its reliability is that it is not always fast. False negatives are an issue. It's not a solution here for many other reasons too: one, that you pointed out, is cost, and then there is the problem that it is not going to be retrofitted to existing weapons. It would make far more sense just to require owners to secure their weapons in locked safes or cabinets.

 

It's hard to believe that you are not just being disingenuous with the "more guns" argument - if such technology were ever implemented then it would be trivial to allow a weapon to be authorized by a superuser (permanently or temporarily) for more than one user as needed. Would that be exploitable or bypassable? Probably, just like a bank security system can be defeated with the right knowledge and tools. Does that, alone, make it pointless? Of course not. It probably would nearly eliminate incidents of kids stealing and using their parents guns though - the assertion above that you took issue with.

 

I'm going to radically disagree. How can they be flawed when we are talking about conjecture about the future and technology? Your counter argument amounts to, "They won't be able to make that though?" You mention the bank robbery as an example. Banks have had to set up fraud prevention services, do spending profiles on their customers and they often automatically call them if something outside of their spending norms occurs. This is now a secondary level of security on top of the primary level of security because of things like card skimmers.

 

In the past the bank robber had to walk in with guns blazing and demand you fill a sack with money. Now someone can crack one database, grab a million credit card numbers and ping each one for a dollar hoping it is never noticed. The card skimming is the new bank robbing in the modern day. A person like yourself or Tonton might say that the cards have to read, that a pin has to be entered and that the technology to copy this information has to be thin, cheap and somehow sit on top of the real deal. It's here. It exists.

 

As for not believing what I see in the movies, we are being asked to engage in conjecture along the lines of things that we see in the movies. We are being asked to believe that a solution has been designed that will authenticate you in a biometric manner that is as thin as a trigger, one hundred percent accurate and operates at speed indistinguishable from the old solution with no scanner. Does that exist in the real world in any form or fashion? It doesn't. It is a solution straight out of the movies as well. I'm simply imaging the counter-measure to it.

 

It is claimed that this will solve a problem. I suggest it will merely shift the problem. Here is another example of that. It was noted it might solve the problem of guns being used for suicides. Kids could not go find a gun in their house and use it to kill themselves. Well the suicide rate in Japan is MUCH higher than in the U.S. and they have very stringent gun control. Yet their suicide rate is double that of the United States even with almost no guns available. Removing guns didn't remove suicide there. It just caused people to jump in front of trains, hang themselves, overdose, etc.

 

You mention gun security and administration levels, etc. Again if anyone would know how to exploit this or even socially engineer around it, it would be the kids. It is the kids often helping the adults, not the other way around. Ask many adults if they set up their wifi router or if the kids handled it.

 

Many of these massacres have occurred from people who seem exceptionally bright but troubled. That means they are bright enough to get around these software solutions.

 

I'll use an analogous example for how the layperson might not be able to understand the technology or defeat it but they just go find someone shady who does for cheap. Most people I encounter barely understand that their cell phone is often sim locked here in the U.S. That doesn't mean that a quick search on Craigslist won't turn up dozens of ads for people who will unlock a phone for $10-20 including iPhones. Do most people know how to flash a phone from one carrier to another like from Sprint to Verizon, etc. Such a "service" is "necessary" when a ESN number has been blocked because the phone has been reported stolen. No problem though, a friendly person will meet with you in Starbucks, bring their laptop and flash your phone for $30.

 

I'm supposed to believe that when I can find ads for people who will root my cell phone, flash it to another provider, add custom roms or "stores" that download "free" apps, etc that this wouldn't happen to a gun?

 

Instead I imagine the opposite because that is what I have seen in technology my whole life. You imagine a world where no one can defeat the superuser administration to gain access to a gun. I imagine a world where such services pop up using slang on Craigslist for $20 and for an extra $10 they will install the fully automatic firing "mod" and large clip "mod" as well. You imagine a world where encryption on DVDs meant no one ever stole a movie again. I imagine a world where moms have their teenagers teaching them how to torrent the shows they missed.

You appear still to be entirely focussed on whether it is possible to bypass or defeat security measures, not whether such measures will deter and reduce security breaches. Do you actually not understand the difference, or are you just being argumentative?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

You appear still to be entirely focussed on whether it is possible to bypass or defeat security measures, not whether such measures will deter and reduce security breaches. Do you actually not understand the difference, or are you just being argumentative?

I focused squarely on the uses of guns and the solution this claims to provide. I noted that suicides were not deterred or reduced in Japan as an example. You mentioned bank robbery. I mentioned the manner in which the money is being stolen now is different and it has not reduced nor deterred bank crimes. We discussed administrative access and encryption and I noted it has not reduced nor deterred video piracy.

Someone here isn't getting the point and I'd suggest it is you. I'm not applying the exception as the rule. Suicide in Japan at double the rate of the U.S. is the rule. Incredibly restrictive gun control laws have not reduced or deterred them. Card skimming has been growing for five years and nets more than a typical bank robbery by far. Torrents are real and easily found for DVD rips and for shows that were broadcast in high definition over HDMI with flags forbidding any recording.

Nothing I have mentioned has been deterred or reduced by technology. Quite the opposite.

I gave a clear example of what I believed would happen, I said instead of being deterred and reduced when guns go "digital" instead of "analog" with regard to their triggers that their hacks will just go digital as well and often the digital solutions have ended up yielding many more problems than they solved. Was video piracy reduced by going from analog VHS to digitally encrypted DVD and Blue Ray or has it exploded instead?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

You appear still to be entirely focussed on whether it is possible to bypass or defeat security measures, not whether such measures will deter and reduce security breaches. Do you actually not understand the difference, or are you just being argumentative?

 

I focused squarely on the uses of guns and the solution this claims to provide. I noted that suicides were not deterred or reduced in Japan as an example. You mentioned bank robbery. I mentioned the manner in which the money is being stolen now is different and it has not reduced nor deterred bank crimes. We discussed administrative access and encryption and I noted it has not reduced nor deterred video piracy.

 

Someone here isn't getting the point and I'd suggest it is you. I'm not applying the exception as the rule. Suicide in Japan at double the rate of the U.S. is the rule. Incredibly restrictive gun control laws have not reduced or deterred them. Card skimming has been growing for five years and nets more than a typical bank robbery by far. Torrents are real and easily found for DVD rips and for shows that were broadcast in high definition over HDMI with flags forbidding any recording.

 

Nothing I have mentioned has been deterred or reduced by technology. Quite the opposite.

 

I gave a clear example of what I believed would happen, I said instead of being deterred and reduced when guns go "digital" instead of "analog" with regard to their triggers that their hacks will just go digital as well and often the digital solutions have ended up yielding many more problems than they solved. Was video piracy reduced by going from analog VHS to digitally encrypted DVD and Blue Ray or has it exploded instead?

Just so I'm completely clear on this - you do not believe that digital security has any effect? Hacking would not be more prevalent if we did not use passwords, bank card crime would be at the same level without PINs, music and movie piracy would be at the same levels or less without copy protection etc.?

And are you arguing that suicide rates in Japan are unaffected by their gun laws? How would you know, anyway, since we have no control set to compare to, but if you are, are you saying that this supports the argument that gun control, even if effective, would not reduce murder/suicide rates, or that it demonstrates that gun control cannot be effective? Those are completely different issues.

And, by extension, are you arguing that adding measures, where there are currently none, to make it harder for one to fire a gun that one does not own will either have no effect on illegal gun use, or make the situation worse? Really - is that your argument?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Just so I'm completely clear on this - you do not believe that digital security has any effect? Hacking would not be more prevalent if we did not use passwords, bank card crime would be at the same level without PINs, music and movie piracy would be at the same levels or less without copy protection etc.?

 

And are you arguing that suicide rates in Japan are unaffected by their gun laws? How would you know, anyway, since we have no control set to compare to, but if you are, are you saying that this supports the argument that gun control, even if effective, would not reduce murder/suicide rates, or that it demonstrates that gun control cannot be effective? Those are completely different issues.

 

And, by extension, are you arguing that adding measures, where there are currently none, to make it harder for one to fire a gun that one does not own will either have no effect on illegal gun use, or make the situation worse? Really - is that your argument?

Most security is through obscurity and prevents at best a casual crime. In my opinion it is useless beyond that.

In most instances things digital become thousands of times easier to manage. The security perhaps makes them a few percent more secure but since the outlet can reach so many more people, the average outcome is the same or worse mathematically. For example mail or wire fraud is a crime. However you had to deal with physical materials. If you can reach a million people with a few email addresses though then even if it had a password that was hacked, the reach is much, much broader. Did you need a password to get your regular mail? No. Did that lack of password enable mail and wire fraud? No. Did the email password stop a few percent more people than someone opening your unlocked mailbox, yes but your mailbox doesn't automatically enable sending information to tens of thousands of people.

Perhaps you've noticed as an example that many institutions have stopped requiring signatures for credit transactions below $20-25. This is the case where I live at least. They simply decided the risk of fraud was lower than the slowdown caused by forcing everyone to sign. The institutions understand they don't live in a perfect world and realize the tradeoffs. They don't expect zero fraud. They just expect less than it would cost them to verify the 99.999% of transactions that weren't fraudulent.

Have you ever had a locksmith make a key for you? The reason they can do this is each series of lock only has a certain number of keys, often less than 20 variations. If for example you had just purchased a 2013 Honda Accord and you went down to a Honda lot and tried your key to your car in every Accord on the lot, you'd find it opens several additional cars. The security is through obscurity. Most people don't go around sticking their keys into other people's car locks. (You might be surprised if you did though.) The same is true if you owned a house in a new development. Your keys will open several other houses. You don't go trying them in other people's front doors though.

I'm not saying there should be zero security. I'm saying the simple and cheap security we often try solves 99% of the problem and the last percent isn't going to be solved. We aren't going to stop a determined person who moves past the obscurity or who is not a casual criminal. Will a deadbolt stop teenagers for wandering through your housing looking for something to trade for beer or pot money on their way home from school? Almost always. Will it stop a homeless person or petty thief? A bit less but often yes. Will it stop higher level thieves who scope out entire neighborhoods for patterns and then exploit them by breaking and entering? Not at all.

You made a point about biometric scanners, right now they often require multiple attempts to verify identity. That trade-off wouldn't be acceptable when being used for protection. The point is often true of deeper security as well. How many people ignore auto-alarms that go off too often? How many alarms and police responses to them slow responses to legitimate crimes? At some point the cost is too high and the benefit too little. As an example when mentioning the state of current biometric scanners, the number of people killed having to scan their fingers multiple times in an emergency scenario would probably be higher than the number saved who would have managed to bypass conventional security measures yet not be able to bypass the biometric measures.

The original post makes it clear it believes biometric triggers would solve problems that are already largely the result of exceptions, not the rule. The number of civilian guns in the United States is estimated at 270 million. The number of murders per year caused by all guns is about 8,500 and the vast majority of those are done by small handguns with small clips. (Again most legislation wants to target rifles and large clips) The remainder of the nearly 3,000 remaining deaths are done with hands, fists and blunt objects. 25% of these crimes won't go away because they don't involve guns and I doubt we can ban hands and feet. The remaining crimes involve .003148148148% of all guns. The number again, will never be zero.

Tonton used as an example, seatbelts. Seatbelt is a poor analogy for biometric trigger locks. Seatbelts are a cheap and simple solution that solve a large percentage of the problem but they won't get you to zero because nothing will. The government has mandated many safety requirements but at a certain point you don't get an additional return. Cars get heavier and more complex. They get more expensive and have to be pressed into service for longer to pay for them. These have negative returns at some point that outweigh the benefits.

Tonton asked if the layperson would be able to defeat a biometric lock. That isn't what to aim for because the average person doesn't commit suicide, commit a crime with a gun, engage in murder, etc. These are the exceptions. Do I believe .003148148148% of the population can find a way around a biometric lock just like they do most current laws and solutions? Yes I do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Just so I'm completely clear on this - you do not believe that digital security has any effect? Hacking would not be more prevalent if we did not use passwords, bank card crime would be at the same level without PINs, music and movie piracy would be at the same levels or less without copy protection etc.?

 

And are you arguing that suicide rates in Japan are unaffected by their gun laws? How would you know, anyway, since we have no control set to compare to, but if you are, are you saying that this supports the argument that gun control, even if effective, would not reduce murder/suicide rates, or that it demonstrates that gun control cannot be effective? Those are completely different issues.

 

And, by extension, are you arguing that adding measures, where there are currently none, to make it harder for one to fire a gun that one does not own will either have no effect on illegal gun use, or make the situation worse? Really - is that your argument?

 

Most security is through obscurity and prevents at best a casual crime. In my opinion it is useless beyond that.

 

In most instances things digital become thousands of times easier to manage. The security perhaps makes them a few percent more secure but since the outlet can reach so many more people, the average outcome is the same or worse mathematically. For example mail or wire fraud is a crime. However you had to deal with physical materials. If you can reach a million people with a few email addresses though then even if it had a password that was hacked, the reach is much, much broader. Did you need a password to get your regular mail? No. Did that lack of password enable mail and wire fraud? No. Did the email password stop a few percent more people than someone opening your unlocked mailbox, yes but your mailbox doesn't automatically enable sending information to tens of thousands of people.

 

Perhaps you've noticed as an example that many institutions have stopped requiring signatures for credit transactions below $20-25. This is the case where I live at least. They simply decided the risk of fraud was lower than the slowdown caused by forcing everyone to sign. The institutions understand they don't live in a perfect world and realize the tradeoffs. They don't expect zero fraud. They just expect less than it would cost them to verify the 99.999% of transactions that weren't fraudulent.

 

Have you ever had a locksmith make a key for you? The reason they can do this is each series of lock only has a certain number of keys, often less than 20 variations. If for example you had just purchased a 2013 Honda Accord and you went down to a Honda lot and tried your key to your car in every Accord on the lot, you'd find it opens several additional cars. The security is through obscurity. Most people don't go around sticking their keys into other people's car locks. (You might be surprised if you did though.) The same is true if you owned a house in a new development. Your keys will open several other houses. You don't go trying them in other people's front doors though.

 

I'm not saying there should be zero security. I'm saying the simple and cheap security we often try solves 99% of the problem and the last percent isn't going to be solved. We aren't going to stop a determined person who moves past the obscurity or who is not a casual criminal. Will a deadbolt stop teenagers for wandering through your housing looking for something to trade for beer or pot money on their way home from school? Almost always. Will it stop a homeless person or petty thief? A bit less but often yes. Will it stop higher level thieves who scope out entire neighborhoods for patterns and then exploit them by breaking and entering? Not at all.

 

You made a point about biometric scanners, right now they often require multiple attempts to verify identity. That trade-off wouldn't be acceptable when being used for protection. The point is often true of deeper security as well. How many people ignore auto-alarms that go off too often? How many alarms and police responses to them slow responses to legitimate crimes? At some point the cost is too high and the benefit too little. As an example when mentioning the state of current biometric scanners, the number of people killed having to scan their fingers multiple times in an emergency scenario would probably be higher than the number saved who would have managed to bypass conventional security measures yet not be able to bypass the biometric measures.

 

The original post makes it clear it believes biometric triggers would solve problems that are already largely the result of exceptions, not the rule. The number of civilian guns in the United States is estimated at 270 million. The number of murders per year caused by all guns is about 8,500 and the vast majority of those are done by small handguns with small clips. (Again most legislation wants to target rifles and large clips) The remainder of the nearly 3,000 remaining deaths are done with hands, fists and blunt objects. 25% of these crimes won't go away because they don't involve guns and I doubt we can ban hands and feet. The remaining crimes involve .003148148148% of all guns. The number again, will never be zero.

 

Tonton used as an example, seatbelts. Seatbelt is a poor analogy for biometric trigger locks. Seatbelts are a cheap and simple solution that solve a large percentage of the problem but they won't get you to zero because nothing will. The government has mandated many safety requirements but at a certain point you don't get an additional return. Cars get heavier and more complex. They get more expensive and have to be pressed into service for longer to pay for them. These have negative returns at some point that outweigh the benefits.

 

Tonton asked if the layperson would be able to defeat a biometric lock. That isn't what to aim for because the average person doesn't commit suicide, commit a crime with a gun, engage in murder, etc. These are the exceptions. Do I believe .003148148148% of the population can find a way around a biometric lock just like they do most current laws and solutions? Yes I do.

Interesting observations, which bring several points to mind. Firstly, when you say that security is achieved through obscurity that is undoubtedly correct, but make something obscure enough and it becomes very secure. Bear in mind that all cryptography is simply obscurity.

Secondly, you make the point that simple security might provide 99% protection. Let's assume that to be a reasonable working estimate if we were all to lock up our weapons, by whatever means. You also point out that gun crime is relatively uncommon - relative both to the total number of guns in circulation. You then appear to argue significant congruence between those two small subsets - implying that the small fraction representing gun crime will coincide with the small fraction of cases where the protection fails, leading to no advantage. In fact, since these are largely independent probability functions (since these kinds of gun crimes do not appear to correlate well with other criminal activity), one should take the product of the values. In this case, if we take your numbers as working examples, one would expect simple security (e.g. securing guns under lock and key) to make acquisition of guns for these purposes to be two orders of magnitude more difficult. That is a significant change in the right direction.

I won't argue about the cost or functional disadvantages of biometric security on a trigger - I already stated that I think it is an unworkable idea and now you are just repeating my arguments back to me, so, obviously, I agree. My original point was that you dismissed the idea for the wrong reasons, relating to lack of a security advantage rather than compromising functionality.

I don't know what you are trying to demonstrate with the observation that a deadbolt will not stop a determined thief. That's precisely why many people don't stop at deadbolts - they install alarm systems, and safes. You are making my point for me - that rather than rely on just one element for security one employs multiple elements, the effects of which are cumulative.

Finally, you comment about laypersons defeating biometric locks, and then argue that the "average person" doesn't commit suicide, etc. But layperson and average person are not the same. In the case at hand (defeating biometric locks) you are probably a layperson unless you have some high-tech hacking skills and equipment, so unless you wish to argue that this group makes up the bulk of suicides, murderers, etc., then the argument fails immediately. Simply being a societal outlier does not, typically, provide the skills and equipment for this task.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Interesting observations, which bring several points to mind. Firstly, when you say that security is achieved through obscurity that is undoubtedly correct, but make something obscure enough and it becomes very secure. Bear in mind that all cryptography is simply obscurity.

 

Secondly, you make the point that simple security might provide 99% protection. Let's assume that to be a reasonable working estimate if we were all to lock up our weapons, by whatever means. You also point out that gun crime is relatively uncommon - relative both to the total number of guns in circulation. You then appear to argue significant congruence between those two small subsets - implying that the small fraction representing gun crime will coincide with the small fraction of cases where the protection fails, leading to no advantage. In fact, since these are largely independent probability functions (since these kinds of gun crimes do not appear to correlate well with other criminal activity), one should take the product of the values. In this case, if we take your numbers as working examples, one would expect simple security (e.g. securing guns under lock and key) to make acquisition of guns for these purposes to be two orders of magnitude more difficult. That is a significant change in the right direction.

Supposing you are right, do you think Republicans, the NRA or anyone or anyone else caricatured as defending guns at any cost would be opposed to a program whereby the government adds a small tax to ammo and gives away free trigger locks as an example? I think it would pass pretty quickly. It would also, as you note, address the crux of the problem pretty simply and would have a high probability of success? If a solution like this would work then why is everyone discussing assault rifles, clip sizes, registering and licensing owners, etc. That is what we should be discussing. If a simple solution can get you such a better result (and we are in agreement there) then what is the real agenda of those who claim to want to protect us all but instead want to inconvenience and attempt to criminalize the actions of millions of people.

In that hypothetical TV movie universe, I do not see that solution having a security advantage. That is correct.

The average person stops at a dead bolt. The percentages after that fall off dramatically. The last stats I read stated that 40% of home security systems fail due to their owners turning them off. The reason they turn them off, I'd hypothesize is they keep setting them off.

I don't know know what you are putting forward here. You seem to be conflating two points that I never put together. Please clarify.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Interesting observations, which bring several points to mind. Firstly, when you say that security is achieved through obscurity that is undoubtedly correct, but make something obscure enough and it becomes very secure. Bear in mind that all cryptography is simply obscurity.

 

Secondly, you make the point that simple security might provide 99% protection. Let's assume that to be a reasonable working estimate if we were all to lock up our weapons, by whatever means. You also point out that gun crime is relatively uncommon - relative both to the total number of guns in circulation. You then appear to argue significant congruence between those two small subsets - implying that the small fraction representing gun crime will coincide with the small fraction of cases where the protection fails, leading to no advantage. In fact, since these are largely independent probability functions (since these kinds of gun crimes do not appear to correlate well with other criminal activity), one should take the product of the values. In this case, if we take your numbers as working examples, one would expect simple security (e.g. securing guns under lock and key) to make acquisition of guns for these purposes to be two orders of magnitude more difficult. That is a significant change in the right direction.

 

Supposing you are right, do you think Republicans, the NRA or anyone or anyone else caricatured as defending guns at any cost would be opposed to a program whereby the government adds a small tax to ammo and gives away free trigger locks as an example? I think it would pass pretty quickly. It would also, as you note, address the crux of the problem pretty simply and would have a high probability of success? If a solution like this would work then why is everyone discussing assault rifles, clip sizes, registering and licensing owners, etc. That is what we should be discussing. If a simple solution can get you such a better result (and we are in agreement there) then what is the real agenda of those who claim to want to protect us all but instead want to inconvenience and attempt to criminalize the actions of millions of people.

I agree - the focus on particular weapons and higher capacity magazines seems misplaced to me. I think that gun storage security requirements, together with somewhat better screening, obligatory wait periods etc. would be more effective. It seems unlikely that any elected politician would have, as a goal, inconveniencing and potentially alienating a substantial segment of the population, but I have no explanation for the current focus. The quite implacable opposition to gun control by the NRA and its institutional supporters is not really a caricature. It's obvious and well documented, and, in my opinion, driven mostly by the commercial concerns of the gun manufacturing industry, so I expect their support to be mostly conditional on the likely effects on gun and ammunition sales. Unfortunately, almost any measure that increases cost of gun ownership and use, complicates storage requirements, or makes acquisition less easy and immediate, is likely to impact sales to some extent, and so they will have an interesting time finding the right balance between profit margins and public opinion.

I'm not sure how to make that argument clearer, but I'll try. You stated:

If I am not mistaken, you start here by implying that a biometric lock that will stop a layperson will be of little use against those trying to commit suicide or murder, because they are not "average". I pointed out that just because such people are not average does not mean that they are not laypersons with regard to defeating biometric locks, and that there is no reason to assume that they are more likely to succeed.

Then you ask if a very small percentage of the population might be expected to be able to defeat a biometric lock, and conclude the answer is yes. Quite possible, but why would you expect the small percentage who can do that to include any significant number of the small percentage who intend to commit suicide or murder? Those should be largely independent subsets, and we would expect the overlap to be extremely small - approximately represented by the product of the fractional occurrences of the two subset . It is very basic probability theory. That was my point. 

Good idea? .. certainly.

Is the technology anywhere near ready?... not even close.

So sure... go ahead and develop the technology, but in the meantime, it certainly shouldn't be mandated or legislated as a requirement.  The technology you want does not exist yet. (in a useable form)

Yes, movies (fiction) and promotional videos from tech companies make it appear like it'll be ready "tomorrow"... but we all know how often release dates get pushed back. :)

So yes, as a strident supporter of the 2nd amendment (and I'd really like folks to read the 28th also!) ... I DO think biotech safety devices will one day be a great thing ... but I have yet to see a practically viable iteration of the technology (for THIS purpose).

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot 

So yes, as a strident supporter of the 2nd amendment (and I'd really like folks to read the 28th also!) ...

The 28th? There appear to be 2-3 proposals out there. Which one are you referring to?