Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Technology Build

High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint 600

Posted by Soulskill from the amazed-he-hasn't-been-expelled dept.
An anonymous reader writes: Kai Kloepfer is a 17-year-old high school student from Colorado who just won the Smart Tech for Firearms Challenge. Kloepfer designed and built a smart gun that will only unlock and fire for users who supply the proper fingerprints. "The gun works by creating a user ID and locking in the fingerprint of each user allowed to use the gun. The gun will only unlock with the unique fingerprint of those who have already permission to access the gun. ... According to him, all user data is kept right on the gun and nothing is uploaded anywhere else so it would be pretty hard to hack." The gun can have up to 999 authorized users, and its accuracy at detecting fingerprints is 99.99%. For winning the challenge, he won $50,000 in funding to continue developing the smart gun. Some of the fund have already gone toward 3-D printing portions of the prototype.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint More

High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint

Comments Filter:

  • Great one more fail (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Maznafein ( 1895 ) on Sunday September 14, 2014 @08:32AM (#47901365) Homepage

    Just what I need in a firearm. One more area that can fail epically. Also yet another battery to carry and eventually run out of.

    Call me crazy but none of my firearms accidentally go off.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Agree. Besides most of firearm incidents in the US are done by the actual owner of the gun. Statistically the only problem the "smart gun" solves can is already taken care of by responsible gun owners with a safe.

      • Re:Great one more fail (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Sunday September 14, 2014 @09:44AM (#47901765)

        Agree. Besides most of firearm incidents in the US are done by the actual owner of the gun. Statistically the only problem the "smart gun" solves can is already taken care of by responsible gun owners with a safe.

        There is a keyword in there.

        Responsible

        How many people are "responsible",p> Many gun affectionados I know think your idea of storing guns in a safe is the start of the guvernment taking them away. Same for a trigger lock. All of those things slow them down if some thug comes into their house.

        Last thing they want is that.

        The problem is that responsibility thing. Google boy shoots sister, or girl shoots brother - or other similar keywords, and you'll be treated to a litany.

        Far too many people just let loaded guns sit around their house like decorations. In one case a few years ago, a young boy shot and killed his sister. When the police investigated, they found rifles leaned up in the corners of every room in the house - but these piles also had the boy's and girl's toy rifles in the same pile.The photos were disturbing.

        So the parents were tried and convicted. Their defense? You got it. Second amendment, their right to stack their real and loaded rifles and their children's rifles in the same place. Their one kid is dead, and the other is living with the fact that he gut shot her and killed her.

        My own personal experience with this sort of madness was when my son was in second grade, a child a few houses up from us comes to hte bus stop with a loaded rifle and darn near made a major adjustment to the youth population in the neighborhood. Fortunately a cool headed mother managed to get the rifle off the lad.

        Police found the same situation. Rifles and handguns laying around the house. And upon their removal, the father (his wife had wisely left him some time before, was all up in arms about his second amendment rights being violated.

        Responsibility. Children have not yet learned it.

        Sadly, neither have many of their parents. The recent killing of a range instructor by a little girl with an auto pistol showed all of that. It's s simple matter of physics that a positive feedback loop might occur in a small person not used to such a device. You want a little kid to learn how to use firearms? Use a .22 caliber rifle and have them learn from the prone position. Safest way to keep them unharmed while they learn.

        Responsibility. It should be the second half of a right. Sad to say, asking people to take responsibility brings out the knives, as the person who thinks it is a good idea is mercilessly attacked for trying to take their guns away.

        This kid who invented this locking/unlocking technology will be eviscerated by the fringe that is controlling the gun discussion today.

        Just watch the response to what I wrote. You might be surprised that I own and enjoy using multiple firearms myself.

        • ... Their defense? You got it. Second amendment, their right to stack their real and loaded rifles and their children's rifles in the same place. Their one kid is dead, and the other is living with the fact that he gut shot her and killed her.

          I personally see this as a failure in the court system that allows an inapplicable defense plea to be submitted. They were correct, they did have the right to do stupid things. What makes that irrelevant, and what they clearly did not understand, is that when those stupid things lead to a fatality then they will be charged with negligent homicide. It's their counsel's fault that they didn't understand the situation well enough to put together a better defense. And now, because the testimony of the defendant

          • Indeed, having the right to own something doesn't remove your responsibility should your stupid use of the right kill someone or break something.

        • Unfortunately, fringes always seem to get the most air and print time. Just this Friday, the NY Times admitted that "assault weapon" was a media fabrication initiated by gun control advocates - a fringe. As anybody and everybody who hits news gets "eviscerated" by some fringe loon, this is not a big deal. What is a big deal is when normally level-headed people believe that "the fringe" is restricted to only the side they disagree with.

    • The article seems to ignore simple dis-assembly as a means to override the lock.

      • Re:Great one more fail (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BringsApples ( 3418089 ) on Sunday September 14, 2014 @08:57AM (#47901499)
        I think that one important thing that this will help end is children, showing each other their dad's cool gun(s), accidentally shooting each other. Or worse, taking the gun to school. I'm all about some guns, I own many. But I also have kids. I keep my guns in a place that keeps my kids safe, but will cost me a few extra seconds to retrieve, in the event of a break-in or something. This would allow me to keep those guns in a "faster" location.

        • Re: Great one more fail (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          When you NEED a gun, waiting on a good fingerprint read could be life threatening. Apply the same tech to a fire extinguisher and see what people think.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            It's a bad analogy. Let me first say I own multiple guns and would not own one of these for many of the same concerns about reliability and not seeing a need for safety theater when statistically it's not a problem worth worrying about. That said, user error when using a Fire Extinguisher doesn't the same impact as a gun so comparing the two in that manner is silly.

            What I will say is I don't understand why folks are against the development of these sorts of things. As long as it's not government mandated

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by pla ( 258480 )
              What I will say is I don't understand why folks are against the development of these sorts of things. As long as it's not government mandated as the only way to get a usable tool then let it compete in the market.

              Why? Because at least one state HAS already mandated it - New Jersey passed that one in 2002, and only the lack of any viable commercial tech has blocked the enforcement of such mandates. And worse, Eric Holder (yes, that Eric Holder) publicly stated that he considers NJ's law a model for futu

        • Keeping guns out of the reach of very young children is important. But just as important is teaching older children and adults about proper gun safety. I worked with a woman who was standing shoulder to shoulder with her best friend when that friend's boyfriend shot her in the face with a large calibre muzzle loader. He wanted to show off his dad's gun and took for granted that it was unloaded. He thought it was perfectly safe to use a percussion cap so it would make a small bang when he pulled the trigger.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Pikoro ( 844299 )

          My problem with this kind of "solution" to keep kids safe is that the kids may now get used to picking up a gun and pulling the trigger and having it not fire because they are not an "authorized" user.

          Then they go to their friends house and find a gun there and play with it when daddy's not around and boom. Dead friend.

    • Re:Great one more fail (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cellocgw ( 617879 ) <cellocgw.gmail@com> on Sunday September 14, 2014 @08:58AM (#47901503) Journal

      Call me crazy but none of my firearms accidentally go off.

      Standard answers apply here:

      1) Yet
      2) You're not everyone
      3) Many policemen would far prefer that their gun not be useable if someone takes it away from them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by GrumpySteen ( 1250194 )

      Just what we need. One more argument against even trying to come up with something better. Clearly we're the pinnacle of civilization and technology, so the status quo is always the best we can do.

    • Just what I need in a firearm.

      Note that the summary says "gun" and not weapon or firearm.

      Why are all my military cronies chuckling . . . ?

      Maybe "unlocking your gun with your fingerprints" means something else to then . . . ?

      "Sir, no Sir, Drill Instructor, Sir. I only shook it three times, as instructed, Sir!"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by durrr ( 1316311 )

      You'll love the next gen firearm that uses geolocation to make sure you don't use it in government buildings and face recognition to ensure you don't shoot your family or self, with additional settings for not firing against facebooks friends. With the premium service it will also refuse to fire unless sure you'll hit your target to save bullets, platinum service will also check the financial status of the would be victim along with consulting expert systems for potential legal complications and only shoot

      • I think you forgot the feature that instantly uploads clips from the boresight camera to YouTube and posts links to them on Twitter.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

      You should be asking what are the chances of it failing verses the chances of someone taking my gun and using it against me. It might be more of an issue for cops than for people at risk of home invasion.

      There is also the issue of someone else taking your gun without your permission. Maybe you lock it up securely, but quite a few gun crimes are committed with weapons owned by family members. Better hide that key well, assuming you care and are not only interested in your own well being.

      In case you want refe

    • HEY! Home invader give me minute to get my fingerprint unlocked so I can defend myself from you that has a gun without such requirements.
      HEY! street robber...
      HEY! Convenient store robber....
      HEY! Park rapist....

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Megol ( 3135005 )

        HEY! Home invader give me a second to remove my gun from my holster and simultaneously unlock it so I can defend myself from you that has a gun already in your hand and ready to fire.

        Fixed that for you.

    • "High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint"

      I feel so special! But, how did he get my fingerprint?

  • This one will insist on checking your fingerprints first.

    As soon as the Police and Military adopt these guns,I'll start considering doing so.

    Until then, my old-fashioned guns will have to suffice.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This one will insist on checking your fingerprints first.

      As soon as the Police and Military adopt these guns,I'll start considering doing so.

      Until then, my old-fashioned guns will have to suffice.

      As much as I understand your sentiment, I think this type of security would be good for all those accidental deaths from the kids who get their hands on a gun that should have been locked up.

      The discussion about "Anyone who'd purchase this gun is already going to keep it locked up." is a separate issue.

      • Re:When you abolutely, positively need a gun now! (Score:4, Informative)

        by Jay Maynard ( 54798 ) on Sunday September 14, 2014 @08:50AM (#47901465) Homepage

        All what accidental deaths? The number is tiny - less than 100 a year. That number is also dropping monotonically every year, and has done so since the 1930s.

        If you want to end kids' accidental deaths, get rid of bathtubs and swimming pools. They kill far more.

        • All what accidental deaths? The number is tiny - less than 100 a year. That number is also dropping monotonically every year, and has done so since the 1930s.

          You're right, and that's good. However this is usually at the expense of the fathers that keep the guns in a safe, or high in the closet, or some other hard-to-get-to location. When you need your gun because someone's breaking in, who's got time to open a safe?

          • Re:When you abolutely, positively need a gun now! (Score:5, Informative)

            by bmajik ( 96670 ) <matt@mattevans.org> on Sunday September 14, 2014 @09:23AM (#47901649) Homepage Journal

            The appropriate product is called the "GunVault". It can be opened in a second or so, in the dark, entirely by touch.

            They make them in different shapes and sizes for different mounting/storage situations.

          • You're right, and that's good. However this is usually at the expense of the fathers that keep the guns in a safe, or high in the closet, or some other hard-to-get-to location. When you need your gun because someone's breaking in, who's got time to open a safe?

            I know someone exactly like you. Guy slept with a loaded .45 under his pillow, safety off, because if someone broke into his place, the time to take the safety off might mean the difference between life and death

            Kinda played hell with his sex life, his wife was petrified the thing might go off. She ended up sleeping separate, while his paranoia grew.

  • But what about... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...the deaths caused by an innocent person not being able to defend him- or herself with such a gun due to no battery of malfunctioning electronics or software? Why is this risk not taken into consideration?

    • Re:But what about... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by amosh ( 109566 ) on Sunday September 14, 2014 @08:41AM (#47901405)

      Because that incredibly small number of theoretical deaths is miniscule compared to the large number of REAL deaths caused by accidental/unauthorized use of guns.

      • Accidental use of guns causes fewer deaths than just about any other accident you can name. The number is small, and has been dropping monotonically since the 1930s.

        Unauthorized use of guns is not going to be significantly impacted by something like this. There are far too many out there without it, and those will never be retrofitted.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ganjadude ( 952775 )
        just because you dont hear about all the guns that save lives, doesnt mean it doesnt happen. for every accidental gun death out there, there are numerous stories of people saving their lives with guns. Just the other day a father and his 4 year old were at home in bed and someone broke in, If the father was unarmed he and his 4 year old would be dead. Instead we have 1 more dead criminal. No one should be upset with dead criminals

  • 999 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14, 2014 @08:36AM (#47901385)

    > The gun can have up to 999 authorized users
    This really bothers me. What current memory hardware stores stuff in base 10? Just either use a byte or the wordsize of the device and be done with it!

  • If You are Too Incompetent (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wisnoskij ( 1206448 ) on Sunday September 14, 2014 @08:53AM (#47901481) Homepage
    If you are too incompetent to control the use of your own gun, then you should not have one. Period. Take the money you were going to spend on this smart gun and take a basic gun safety class.

    • Re:If You are Too Incompetent (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NormalVisual ( 565491 ) on Sunday September 14, 2014 @09:43AM (#47901759)
      Take the money you were going to spend on this smart gun and take a basic gun safety class.

      If it's priced like the existing smart guns (Armatix, etc.), you'll likely be able to buy a week at Gunsite or similar training program, where you'll also learn important stuff like identifying/using cover, off-hand shooting, clearing malfunctions, retention, and tons of other skills that will be far more useful than an electronic lock.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Megol ( 3135005 )

      That would rule out a huge proportion of US gun owners. I say this as a gun enthusiast BTW.

  • Been there, done that (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Sunday September 14, 2014 @08:57AM (#47901501) Journal
    This is certainly not the first time someone came up with this idea, nor the first time an actual implementation was made. This article and the award sounds like a publicity stunt, and it has all the usual elements: young wunderkind, technical gadgetry to solve some social or politically charged issue.

    And other posters here are right: the last thing you need is a weapon that fails when you need it most. If you want a weapon that's safe at rest, get a gun safe with a fingerprint scanner so you can get at it quickly when needed. And if you really want a gun that is disabled when it's taken away from you, I'd go with a simple mechanical solution like a pin on a lanyard that will lock the gun when removed. But in reality, if you've pulled out your weapon with intent to use it, you want nothing to stand in the way of a shot being fired when you pull that trigger.

  • 99.99%, eh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ihlosi ( 895663 )
    So that means that one in ten thousand people who really need the gun to fire will instead get mauled by a bear, stabbed by a crazy or shot by a terrorist.

    Also, how long does the fingerprint analysis take? Sometimes you need to fire in a hurry. One second might make the difference between you walking away and the other possibilites mentioned above.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by amosh ( 109566 )

      You are totally right. Because most of the guns used in America are used to prevent people from being "stabbed by a crazy" or shot by a terrorist.

      Oh wait. Yeah, I can live with the 1/10,000 chance because THOSE THINGS NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPEN EXCEPT IN YOUR IMAGINATION. Or do you think the "liberal media" is covering up the hundreds of thousands of people who use guns to prevent themselves from being stabbed in our (incredibly safe) country every day?

      (Bears aside - and you're usually not in a quick-draw situat

      • Or do you think the "liberal media" is covering up the hundreds of thousands of people who use guns to prevent themselves from being stabbed in our (incredibly safe) country every day?

        So, I gather that you think that the "liberal media" is covering up the hundreds of thousands of people who shoot themselves accidently in our (incredibly safe) country every day?

        Because, face it, that doesn't actually happen all that often either. Note that the average is somewhere around 600 fatalities per year in a nation

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rostin ( 691447 )
        Approximately 30,000 gun homicides occur per year in the US. Because they don't necessarily involve a homicide or even a shooting, the number of defensive gun uses is much harder to estimate. Wikipedia says that scholarly estimates are as low as 55,000-80,000 per year but may be as high as several million per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]

  • anybody who has had to deal with fingerprint scanners knows how this will turn out.

  • The other question that needs to be asked (Score:3)

    by NotSoHeavyD3 ( 1400425 ) on Sunday September 14, 2014 @09:15AM (#47901603) Journal
    Was that 99.99% test done on a fire arm that has been used much? I kind of remember one of the big problems with these kinds of devices is that if you practiced regularly with the gun the shock from all those firings tended to break this kind of hardware. (And yes, you're supposed to practice with the actual gun you're going to use to protect yourself with. Picking up a random gun and getting off a perfect only happens in the movies.)

    • The other question that needs to be asked (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pla ( 258480 ) on Sunday September 14, 2014 @12:05PM (#47902477) Journal
      Was that 99.99% test done on a fire arm that has been used much?

      If you check out the pics in TFA, you'll see that not only didn't they test fire this the hundreds of thousands of times it would take to come up with that claim of accuracy - This "proof of concept" wouldn't ever work in a real gun.

      Apparently, this genius 17YO knows so little about the functioning of an actual gun that he simply filled the receiver with electronics (because nothing important goes in all that empty space) and produced what amounts a gun-shaped fingerprint reader. Because, y'know, who needs all those silly little things like springs or hammers or firing pins or magazines to also fit inside a working gun?

  • 99.99% accuracy (Score:5, Funny)

    by ArcadeMan ( 2766669 ) on Sunday September 14, 2014 @09:20AM (#47901627)

    Its accuracy at detecting fingerprints is 99.99%.

    Forget guns, sell the technology to Samsung.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday September 14, 2014 @09:26AM (#47901669)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • "its accuracy at detecting fingerprints is 99.99%" (Score:3)

    by cirby ( 2599 ) on Sunday September 14, 2014 @09:28AM (#47901679)

    Yeah, I just bet it is.

    This kid managed to make a rugged, reliable piece of hardware that recognizes many fingerprints, will withstand regular impacts from firing, and managed to make the failure rate only one in ten thousand.

    Oh, wait - he made a plastic prototype, and hasn't actually tested it in a firing weapon?

    Do tell.

    • it gets better when you realize the fingerprint sensor is in millions of phones and doesn't come close to that reliability. That same sensor can be hacked in minutes too.

  • ... but completely irrelevant when you can just hack the gun itself.

  • Does little Bobby Tables Jr. keep wasting your ammunition? Did your dog shoot itself while rummaging in the closet?
    Then Inteligun is the gun for you!

    - "Intelligun. Smart guns for stupid people."

  • the army and cops will not use this or any think like it.

    In the army you want to have it so any one can use any gun at any time. Also they do not want something that needs batterers and / or can be jammed with EMP's.

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close