Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Biometric gun lock has a fingerprint scanner

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273

    Thumbs down Biometric gun lock has a fingerprint scanner

    Engineer Omer Kiyani, who was shot in the face when he was 16 years old, has an innovative solution. It’s called Indentilock and it’s a biometric lock that attaches to the trigger mechanism and only comes off when activated by an authorized fingerprint. It’s similar to how the fingerprint lock on an iPhone works. Except in this case, the lock is FBI compliant and detachable.

    http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/05/...ntcmp=features

    http://www.sentinl.com/#homepage
    Soon to be mandatory? CA is the most likely to mandate such a device.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  2. #2
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    What about a bloody finger print...d'oh, nope!

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Soon to be mandatory?
    Wishful thinking?

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    It occurs to me that, absent government meddling, I would fully expect such technology to become ubiquitous in a free market, such a market providing the best possible environment to allow the evolutionary perfection of such a product.

    Of course, "perfected" implies high reliability, and I also think a great degree of choice and flexibility are important. For instance, should the device fail (run out of battery power or something), into what mode should the weapon failsafe? This answer is going to depend greatly on the weapon's intended application, as well as its user's preference. For instance, a weapon intended for self-defense should probably fail into a fireable state, and a range toy should probably fail into a "safe" state.

    Imagine, for the sake of argument, that such technology existed in some form which was highly reliable, and in the rare cases where it did not function, it would render the weapon fireable. (I do doubt that fingerprints would be the likely mechanism for such highly-reliable and necessarily fast biometric identification, but the exact technology is irrelevant.)

    Given the above, and no reason to fear that such a device could be "used against" its owner by prompting legislative mandates, I suspect the great majority of carriers (especially open carriers) would avail themselves of such firearms. Really, what's not to like?

    Now, this isn't some switchback approach to a defense of such mandates. It's more a lamentation that there are indeed folks who so poorly understand the nature of power and incentives that they would endanger such a future by proposing mandates at all, which in failing to manifest serve only to chill market demand for such technology, and should they manifest could be fully expected to induce lack of competition, complacency, and ultimately technological stagnation.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    What about a bloody finger print...d'oh, nope!
    Well, don't wear any Band-aids!

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    But what if the bad guy is your unknown evil twin brother?


    "Gee, how do you like that? I must be a judge..."
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  7. #7
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    But what if the bad guy is your unknown evil twin brother?
    SNIP...
    "Gee, how do you like that? I must be a judge..."
    Then make sure the "biometric lock" scans for FINGERPRINTS and not DNA (you share the same DNA with identical twins, but have different prints).

    Of course, said locks are prone to failure in the most dire circumstances. Best safety mechanism: a safe human operating the gun.
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 05-07-2014 at 01:47 PM.
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Honestly, not only do I have no problem with such things as this lock, I'm glad to see such things coming out. Imagine this compared to the current basic trigger lock that is easily defeated. For those that have a desire for such things the development of this technology is great even if this particular model isn't up to par of where some would want the tech (but we can't get there without development). Hell, I don't even have a problem with the "smart" guns that we've seen.

    My issue is pretty much what marshal said. While I might not want such a thing, there's nothing wrong with others developing such things in a FREE society. The problem is when politicians meddle in such things. This leads to people being scared of the tech, not because the tech is inherently bad (though a specific model might be), but because a politician might decide to try and mandate it when you either don't want it, can't afford such a thing, and/or it isn't up to your quality standards before you would be comfortable using it.

    In regards to this particular item, I think it's a good thing given that places like CA you're already supposed to have such a device on your gun. Sure this "can" break, but you "could" misplace the key to a standard one as well. Thus so long as reliability issues are worked out I see this a good thing. The only danger in developing items like this is from politicians trying to mandate the use of such things.

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    There is no mention in the law that requires the key to be removed from the trigger lock/locking device.

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...le=25100-25135
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  10. #10
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    It occurs to me that, absent government meddling, I would fully expect such technology to become ubiquitous in a free market, such a market providing the best possible environment to allow the evolutionary perfection of such a product.

    Of course, "perfected" implies high reliability, and I also think a great degree of choice and flexibility are important. For instance, should the device fail (run out of battery power or something), into what mode should the weapon failsafe? This answer is going to depend greatly on the weapon's intended application, as well as its user's preference. For instance, a weapon intended for self-defense should probably fail into a fireable state, and a range toy should probably fail into a "safe" state.

    Imagine, for the sake of argument, that such technology existed in some form which was highly reliable, and in the rare cases where it did not function, it would render the weapon fireable. (I do doubt that fingerprints would be the likely mechanism for such highly-reliable and necessarily fast biometric identification, but the exact technology is irrelevant.)

    Given the above, and no reason to fear that such a device could be "used against" its owner by prompting legislative mandates, I suspect the great majority of carriers (especially open carriers) would avail themselves of such firearms. Really, what's not to like?

    Now, this isn't some switchback approach to a defense of such mandates. It's more a lamentation that there are indeed folks who so poorly understand the nature of power and incentives that they would endanger such a future by proposing mandates at all, which in failing to manifest serve only to chill market demand for such technology, and should they manifest could be fully expected to induce lack of competition, complacency, and ultimately technological stagnation.
    Well said.

    I've considered getting a The GunBox, which I think is an interesting implementation of some current technology in a gun safety device. They use RFID readers, fingerprint scanners, motion/vibration sensors which can active an audible alarm and GPS trackers.

    I'd be interested to see how "modern technology" might be used to improve retention holsters. I don't think fingerprint readers would be of much use but maybe some other technology could improve simplicity and speed of drawing from a retention holster.

    Hmm, isn't that an idea. Mandate government agents use "smart holsters" XD Hook it to their body cam so that in order for their holster to release the firearm, it must be receiving signal from the camera that it's operational and recording. No accountability, no draw. Hmmmmmmmm. Probably not a good idea, but interesting train of thought.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 05-08-2014 at 08:10 AM.
    Advocate freedom please

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Free market principals should doom this product to the scrap heap of history.

    RFID can be hacked, but, a fingerprint cannot be hacked.

    http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/15/g...-reader-spoof/

    Any sales, even statistically insignificant sales, will prompt legislation to mandate these products in anti-liberty state legislatures; CA, NJ et al.

    This could spawn a surge in the buying of handguns for home defense, the product makes the gun a one owner gun and unusable by any other family member in a SD situation.

    The product owner/developer, a self described gun owner , citing Brady Bunch numbers, places him in the category of "liberal with a gun."
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Free market principals should doom this product to the scrap heap of history.
    This one, perhaps. Certainly not any and all such products.

    The constant threat of mandates doesn't constitute a "free market".

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    There is no mention in the law that requires the key to be removed from the trigger lock/locking device.

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...le=25100-25135
    "...The person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian..."

    A reasonable person should know that if you leave the key in the locking device then the child is likely to gain access to the firearm. So while it might not directly say you have to remove the key, the law indirectly says that you need to remove the key. And then there's this

    "...The firearm is locked with a locking device, as defined in Section 16860, which has rendered the firearm inoperable..."

    And it wouldn't be too hard to say that a lock with the key sticking out of it doesn't render the firearm inoperable.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I got a fingerprint technology gun ... found it next to a dead guy....thanks dead guy!

  15. #15
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I got a fingerprint technology gun ... found it next to a dead guy....thanks dead guy!

    David,,, You Are a Hoot!
    and lotsa fun,,, very thoughtful too.
    Glad you were a wise guy and got that gun off the street, thinking of the children no doubt...

    Hope you took the dead guys finger too...
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    5

    The gun has the fingerprint keypad

    I think that it is normal for the gun safes to have the fingerprint key pad which is the most advanced technology in the field of locking. The fingerprints keypad also has many different types. Some require you whole five fingers to press other just requre one finger. They both allow you to quickly opening the gun safe and access the firearm.

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    "...The person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian..."

    A reasonable person should know that if you leave the key in the locking device then the child is likely to gain access to the firearm. So while it might not directly say you have to remove the key, the law indirectly says that you need to remove the key. And then there's this

    "...The firearm is locked with a locking device, as defined in Section 16860, which has rendered the firearm inoperable..."

    And it wouldn't be too hard to say that a lock with the key sticking out of it doesn't render the firearm inoperable.
    A deflection regarding the letter of the law.....directly speaking.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    A deflection regarding the letter of the law.....directly speaking.
    How is it a deflection? Just because it doesn't say that the key must be removed, but rather is vague enough to cover such a situation without being overly vague?

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    How is it a deflection? Just because it doesn't say that the key must be removed, but rather is vague enough to cover such a situation without being overly vague?
    The law is not vague.

    25100. (a) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits the crime of "criminal storage of a firearm in the first degree" if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
    (1) The person keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under the person's custody or control.
    (2) The person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian, or that....
    (3) The child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes death or great bodily injury to the child or any other person, or the person....

    (b) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits the crime of "criminal storage of a firearm in the second degree" if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
    (1) The person keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under the person's custody or control.
    (2) The person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian, or that....
    (3) The child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes injury, other than great bodily injury, to the child or any other person, or carries the firearm either to a public place or in violation of Section 417, or the person....

    (c) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits the crime of "criminal storage of a firearm in the third degree" if the person keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under the person's custody or control and negligently stores or leaves a loaded firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian, unless reasonable action is taken by the person to secure the firearm against access by the child.
    25105. Section 25100 does not apply whenever any of the following occurs:
    (a) The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry to any premises by any person.
    (b) The firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure.
    (c) The firearm is carried on the person or within close enough proximity thereto that the individual can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person.
    (d) The firearm is locked with a locking device, as defined in Section 16860, which has rendered the firearm inoperable.
    (e) The person is a peace officer or a member of the Armed Forces or the National Guard and the child obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance of the person's duties.
    (f) The child obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person.
    (g) The person who keeps a loaded firearm on premises that are under the person's custody or control has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises.
    http://www.thepresstribune.com/keywords/ken-skogen

    Gross negligence is not contained within the text of the law.

    This law is about as anti-liberty and anti-citizen as they come.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The law is not vague.





    http://www.thepresstribune.com/keywords/ken-skogen

    Gross negligence is not contained within the text of the law.

    This law is about as anti-liberty and anti-citizen as they come.
    I'm not following you here. Section 25105 (d) says that the gun must be rendered inoperable, so how does a key sticking out of the lock render it inoperable? Also how does a case about a cop not being charged have anything to do with this? That is more of an issue of the "thin blue line" or whatever term you want to use for cops protecting cops.

    Also please explain to me how this is anti-liberty (ignoring how it isn't evenly enforced). From my understanding, it isn't a crime to simply have your weapon "improperly" stored. It is only a crime when a child gains access to said weapon AND either hurts theirself or does something illegal with said weapon. Maybe I'm missing something, but the only thing I really see as anti-liberty is them holding you accountable if someone else's child gets ahold of the weapon while at your house. I don't see it as anti-liberty for punishing you for effectively enabling your child's misdeeds.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •