posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 01:02 PM
Chester, there is no way such technology would even be considered as a replacement at this time (if it even exists). Thus far, the "Internet of
things" (IOT) has proven itself very insecure. If this technology relied on any of the 802.11 standards for this activity (as you suggest), it
wouldn't stand a chance in today's hostile cyber security arena.
802.11 does not have a built in means to authenticate a user (barring RADIUS, etc) without significant background infrastructure and tech (that is
also vulnerable to attack). What would prevent the user from capturing and replaying the authentication frame (from home or the range) and using it
whenever they like? How would they validate a user was who they say they are? In order to properly secure and authenticate someone, the device would
have to be capable of performing complex cryptographic operations at very quick speeds (life or death situation). How would the system prevent an
attacker from purchasing/building a microwave jammer? Or even broadcasting deauth frames in order to effectively deny access to an AP? GPS could be
jammed via RF devices purpose built for jamming or by simply wrapping RF shielding material around the GPS antennae. What if you were inside of a
faraday cage built around an entire room? How about if you were in a basement that was just too deep? There are too many possibilities here.
There are far too many security concerns and the technology is far too immature to even be considered as a viable replacement. The most effective
means for protecting your firearms have been largely unchanged: You should always secure your weapon (locked up or in a Level ~2 holster) as you are
responsible for it 24/7. Follow basic safety rules and know when it is appropriate to employ in self defense. I'm not saying the smart gun technology
is a waste, as it very well may make sense for certain people. If you only use your firearm for target shooting and have small children at home, the
extra couple seconds it takes to unlock a smart gun probably wouldn't be an issue.
In the case of home defense (think 3 AM, dark & disoriented) or CHL defensive shooting (low light, or just ambush style attack) these make no sense.
Research has shown even experienced officers/carriers can fumble with safety mechanisms and holster retention mechanisms in a high-stress life or
death situation. I don't think it would make sense in this respect.
Additionally, banning conventional firearms will not be effective for two reasons 1) there are far too many in circulation and 2) they are far too
easy (and legal) to construct.
Once cyber security takes a turn toward the secure I would be a bit less reluctant to believe this is possible. For the time being, the state of
security is so poor that such a creation is not very practical and definitely not reliable.
edit on 10/15/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason