Boston: GPS on handguns


PDA






Brat7748
January 18, 2006, 11:18 AM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1560263/posts

Boston City Councilor Rob Consalvo recently announced a plan to install GPS tracking devices on all new handguns in response to the city's increasing murder rate. Unfortunately, Councilor Consalvo has failed to make the connection between the high concentration of MS-13 gang members and the increasing murder rate.

Councilor Consalvo also fails to explain how a tracking device will detect, prevent, or solve any crime. Does Councilor Consalvo really believe that a murderer, using a handgun with a GPS tracking device, will keep the handgun in his posession after committing a crime? If the gun was stolen from a law-abiding citizen, would that citizen be held responsible for the crime? Doesn't the tracking device create a gun registry system?

Considering the fact that the MS-13 gang has a high concentration in Boston and the East Coast, it seems logical that cracking down on illegal immigration would be a better way to protect law-abiding citizens. One might assume that the men pictured to the right would be denied entry into this country if they attempted to get here through legal channels. However, considering the fact that a U.S. Border Patrol agent was brought up on federal charges for illegally purchasing a pistol for a Mexican national who intended to smuggle the weapon into Mexico, brings the hiring practices and leadership ability of the U.S. Border Patrol into question.

Meanwhile, the City of Seattle has plans to hire a "Crime Gun Program Coordinator". This newly created position within the Seattle Police Department will be paid for by taxpayers to "develop, maintain and coordinate a centralized and regionally comprehensive crime gun database and integrate the data with relevant information" from the State Department of Licensing, Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and other law enforcement agencies. In other words, there will be one more anti-gun bigot shuffling papers behind a desk instead of one more police officer on the street. Does the City of Seattle really believe gang members like the ones pictured in the links below are the least bit concerned about the City's listmaking?

Perhaps instead of devising complicated schemes to spy on private, law-abiding citizens, City officials and police departments should enhance their own internal recordkeeping. Certainly the Long Beach Police Department, which is missing more than a fourth of its shotguns and an unknown number of revolvers, could use a little improvement in this area.

Clearly, there is a rash of gross incompetence occurring in many areas of government and at all levels. Not only are many government officials failing to protect us by refusing to acknowledge the link between illegal immigration and violent crime, but they are also attempting to disarm us at the same time. These politically-correct cowards pander to violent criminals by refusing to stand up for this country and enforce our laws. They would rather put our lives in jeopardy as well as the future sovereignty of this country than stand up for what's right. It's time to throw the bums out and put a stop to these policies. It's a matter of self defense.

If you enjoyed reading about "Boston: GPS on handguns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fletcher
January 18, 2006, 11:21 AM
From an engineering/technology standpoint, it's impractical, if not impossible, to have a cost-efficient, practical GPS tracking system on a firearm.

shermacman
January 18, 2006, 11:23 AM
There is going to be a really long line of MS-13 criminal aliens eagerly waiting to purchase those GPS chips for their stolen hand guns!

Live Free Or Die
January 18, 2006, 11:45 AM
From an engineering/technology standpoint, it's impractical, if not impossible, to have a cost-efficient, practical GPS tracking system on a firearm.

And from a law-enforcement point of view, it's simply absurd. Do police or politicians realize a battery is required to power the GPS processor? Do they expect criminals (or even non-criminals) to dutifully replace the battery at the same time they replace their smoke detector batteries each year? :D

I guess it's only a matter of time before a politician/technologist figures out how to harness some energy from a firearm discharge to recharge the battery and broadcast the firearm's location each time it's fired. However, I doubt the GPS circuitry would survive 15 seconds in a microwave. :D

engineer151515
January 18, 2006, 12:28 PM
Its stories like this that convince me there are few engineers in politics.

BostonGeorge
January 18, 2006, 01:24 PM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1560263/posts

Unfortunately, Councilor Consalvo has failed to make the connection between the high concentration of MS-13 gang members and the increasing murder rate.

Considering the fact that the MS-13 gang has a high concentration in Boston and the East Coast, it seems logical that cracking down on illegal immigration would be a better way to protect law-abiding citizens.

While I'm sure we can all agree Counsilor Consalvo is misguided at best, these statements are beyond ridiculous.

The number of MS-13 in the Boston Metro area is fairly miniscule, and the only neighborhood within the city where they have any noticable presence probably had one of the lowest murder rates in the city this past year.

WillBrayJr
January 18, 2006, 01:27 PM
Next thing you know they will want to put a GPS unit in anything that can be used as a weapon. There goes 99% of anything product. When that doesn't work then they'll want to put a GPS unit in our brain.

Deavis
January 18, 2006, 02:17 PM
From an engineering/technology standpoint, it's impractical, if not impossible, to have a cost-efficient, practical GPS tracking system on a firearm.

What? Are you kidding? Integrating a low-chip count GPS solution into a firearm, even a handgun, would not be much of an engineering challenge. All the necessary electronic components could easily fit, especially on a rifle because you only need a transmitter, not a transceiver or display for this to work.

The device could easily be minaturized using SMT devices, high desity interconnects and a series of small PCBs (All off shelf and easy to work with) to take up about as much space as a Streamlight M3. The antenna could then be routed through the frame to give it the appropriate length. From an engineering stand point, this is a simple task compared to producing a modern cell phone with all its bells and whistles.

Can'thavenuthingood
January 18, 2006, 02:22 PM
More feel good legislation/ordinance again. Just another way to de-commision firearms.

Easy vote getter.

Vick

StopTheGrays
January 18, 2006, 02:25 PM
From an engineering/technology standpoint, it's impractical, if not impossible, to have a cost-efficient, practical GPS tracking system on a firearm.

And we swerve into the truth, by making firearms to expensive to buy for the common pleb.

engineer151515
January 18, 2006, 02:27 PM
What? Are you kidding? Integrating a low-chip count GPS solution into a firearm, even a handgun, would not be much of an engineering challenge. ....


I submit.......

Miniaturized circuitry is not the engineering difficulty.

What's the range of your GPS transmission? Cell phones have enough trouble reaching the local tower. And remember that the handheld GPS units for marking position are receivers. Not transmitters. Take a look at a satellite cellphone setup and you have a briefcase sized unit, with dished antenna.

daiadvisor
January 18, 2006, 02:29 PM
Sounds like another "ballistic fingerprint" type fiasco waiting to happen. Again, they are trying to cure the symptom, and not the problem.

azredhawk44
January 18, 2006, 02:30 PM
As a manufacturer, I would refuse to sell to Boston. I would not produce a product that fits their description and would put their PD on a "ban" list.

I'd like to see Glock, Sig, HK, Ruger, Smith, Beretta, Kahr, Springfield, Colt and Kimber all sign on to such an agreement. Any other smaller manufacturer could obviously also sign on too.

The remaining scabs would be too unreliable or too small to produce for CA, Boston, NY, DC, Hawaii, Chicago and the other kook centrals!

It leaves:
HiPoint
KelTec
Les Baer
Wilson
ParaOrdnance
AutoOrdnance
STI

Mostly either high $ 1911 custom makers, or low end stuff that police will not want as a duty weapon.

BostonGeorge
January 18, 2006, 02:37 PM
As a manufacturer, I would refuse to sell to Boston. I would not produce a product that fits their description and would put their PD on a "ban" list.

I'd like to see Glock, Sig, HK, Ruger, Smith, Beretta, Kahr, Springfield, Colt and Kimber all sign on to such an agreement. Any other smaller manufacturer could obviously also sign on too.

The remaining scabs would be too unreliable or too small to produce for CA, Boston, NY, DC, Hawaii, Chicago and the other kook centrals!


I agree, unfortunatly said manufacturers have proven time and time again that they are unconcerned with RKBA.

Erinyes
January 18, 2006, 02:44 PM
And it would still have to be a transciever assembly. The device would have to recieve GPS coordinates from the satelite system and then transmit them to a monitoring station. That station would have to be manned 24/7. Add in the engineers needed to maintain the monitoring station, the short range of a tranciever small enough to fit in a pistol, and the whole thing just becomes unfeasible. Even if it were technologically possible, you're adding manpower that would cost millions of dollars a year.

Erinyes
January 18, 2006, 02:47 PM
I agree, unfortunatly said manufacturers have proven time and time again that they are unconcerned with RKBA.It's all about profit. While they definately wouldn't boycott Boston Police, the development costs of such a GPS system would have to fall on those manufacturers. They would have to decide if the revenues generated from sales in Boston are greater than the amount they'd have to dump into R&D. And for some reason, I doubt Boston sales of firearms are really something to write home about...

One of Many
January 18, 2006, 02:50 PM
What? Are you kidding? Integrating a low-chip count GPS solution into a firearm, even a handgun, would not be much of an engineering challenge. All the necessary electronic components could easily fit, especially on a rifle because you only need a transmitter, not a transceiver or display for this to work.

The device could easily be minaturized using SMT devices, high desity interconnects and a series of small PCBs (All off shelf and easy to work with) to take up about as much space as a Streamlight M3. The antenna could then be routed through the frame to give it the appropriate length. From an engineering stand point, this is a simple task compared to producing a modern cell phone with all its bells and whistles.

Are you an electronics engineer? I am, and I say that you are making a bogus statement. GPS systems are receivers; they receive signals from satellites in orbit, and that reguires that antennas be able to receive a strong enough signal (actually several signals since the system requires multiple satellites to work). Have you ever placed a GPS receiver in an enclosed metal box, and observed that the system can not track the location as the box is moved? Have you ever heard of a Faraday Cage? What about underground usage? Have you ever experienced GPS dropout when you drive into an underground parking garage (or even just park under a bridge)?

It would be practically (emphasis on practical) impossible to make a GPS system that would function reliably in a firearm. Add to that the requirement to have a transmitter in the firearm to relay the position to some monitoring station. Unless the monitoring station is very close, the power requirements for the transmitter would be very high, and battery depletion would be rapid (consider how quickly your cell phone battery dies when you are more than 5 miles from a cell tower). The cost for such a system would be astronomical, considering the number of monitoring antenna sites that would be required.

Another poster has already mentioned the problem with supplying power to such an in firearm GPS relay system; criminals will not replace discharged batteries. Photovoltaics and storage capacitors would be too cumbersome to be workable (and would be defeated by keeping the gun in darkness), and we can't have nuclear power in hand held units. Cold Fusion does not exist yet, so just how do you expect to make this device work for more than 24 hours?

WillBrayJr
January 18, 2006, 02:50 PM
I don't think Springfield Armory would sign anything. The @$$ kissers Colt and Ruger probably will though.

progunner1957
January 18, 2006, 02:55 PM
I agree, unfortunatly said manufacturers have proven time and time again that they are unconcerned with RKBA.
Yup - the gun makers have a "corporate mindset" (that is, profit over principles; good, old-fashioned GREED).

No doubt some greedy ones at the top of the heap at "Brand X Guns" would drop to their knees, break the boycott and service the boycotted cities and their police departments. Selling themselves to the highest bidder.

It seems that the gun maker's outlook is "When guns are outlawed - we'll sell them to 'The Government.' " They know this is where the true money lies, and that seems to be their priority.:barf: :barf:

fletcher
January 18, 2006, 02:58 PM
What? Are you kidding? Integrating a low-chip count GPS solution into a firearm, even a handgun, would not be much of an engineering challenge. All the necessary electronic components could easily fit, especially on a rifle because you only need a transmitter, not a transceiver or display for this to work.



No, I wasn't kidding. Integrating a GPS device into a firearm, with a transmitter powerful enough to reach towers to transfer the data to whoever from out in the middle of nowhere, batteries to power said transmitter for a reasonable amount of time, etc. would add considerable size and weight to a firearm.

Think about putting that GPS stuff on a pocket-gun like a Kel-Tec or NAA. It ain't happening.

Lupinus
January 18, 2006, 03:11 PM
What? Are you kidding? Integrating a low-chip count GPS solution into a firearm, even a handgun, would not be much of an engineering challenge. All the necessary electronic components could easily fit, especially on a rifle because you only need a transmitter, not a transceiver or display for this to work.

The device could easily be minaturized using SMT devices, high desity interconnects and a series of small PCBs (All off shelf and easy to work with) to take up about as much space as a Streamlight M3. The antenna could then be routed through the frame to give it the appropriate length. From an engineering stand point, this is a simple task compared to producing a modern cell phone with all its bells and whistles.
Please tell me you are kidding? Even if you made it as small as a cell phone (which for all the parts needed, batteries, etc would be an expensive difficult task) where the hell on a handgun, even a full sized handgun, are you going to stick something the size of a cell phone? Then where are you going to put the antenna? Then you have to figure out how to make it reliable. Throw your cell phone on the floor a few times see how well it works, then do that a few thousand times. Firing a gun puts off a good bit of shock that would tear up any electronics you put into it. We aren't talking a light or a laser, these things are simple. We are talking complex microchips that don't like being bashed around.

Brat7748
January 18, 2006, 04:33 PM
Ahhh you guys are all missing the real motive. It will be easy to tell who is packing a new GPS enabled handgun by the GPS antenna stuck to their head!

Car Knocker
January 18, 2006, 04:47 PM
As if the BG couldn't just remove the GPS unit.

MD_Willington
January 18, 2006, 05:43 PM
They must have interviewed the nerd who was finishing his "Robot", you know the "Giirrl Robot"...

GPS = nope

RFID = yep... but they can be fixed.

Mad Chemist
January 18, 2006, 05:44 PM
They're not content with violating the 2nd Amendment, now they want to violate the 4th as well. I have a few choice adjectives to describe these people but none of them are suitable for this board.:cuss:

fletcher
January 18, 2006, 05:56 PM
OK - I sent the guy an email, and his response stated that the plan was "well thought out", it was "a win for gunowners, because it can be used to retrieve a stolen gun", and that one company had already contacted him, saying their "device is as small as a dime." So, I'm going to have to call BS on this whole thing (on Boston).

Sean Cloherty
January 19, 2006, 12:05 AM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha . . . :scrutiny:

No offense but . . . Are you guys seriously debating Farady cages, printed circuit vulnerability to recoil, reception issues and power sources and such? You must have a lot of free time on your hands.

Massachusetts has a multitude of village idiots, who we here in the People's Republic call "legislators". That one of them spouts off some damn fool idea that any posessor of an even a marginally working sense of reality would see as complete B.S. is no reason for this outburst of self indulgence and/or pontificating by the otherwise intelligent denizens of THR.

As you may not be aware, our elected types try to justify themselves by making more and more outrageous proposals (for the cheeeeeelden). On a rare occasion,when the people clamor for action rather than bread and circuses, one of these brain farts of legislation metastisizes and becomes a bill.

So many of these inanities are proposed yearly that we don't take it as seriously as some of you may have. Only after the state legislature (the best money can buy - (thanks Howie)) has a bill with this in third reading should the inmates start taking it seriously. :D

. . . and now back to your regularly scheduled rant about the number of angels blah blah blah . . .

Deavis
January 19, 2006, 12:21 AM
Are you an electronics engineer?

Actually, yes, I am, with two degrees and experience in embedded system design. I don't think my statement is bogus at all, but after reading it again I can see how my posting in haste led to a large disconnect in the system I envisioned off the cuff and what you are envisioning.

I submit that you don't need anything more than a transmitter to make this system work. The only thing the weapon has to do is "register" on a local cell phone network to provide GPS positioning information. The cell phone towers provide triangulation, which in turn can provide GPS compatible coordinates. The device wouldn't even have to communicate with the towers if the cell towers were designed to accept the communication at face value.

Have you ever heard of a Faraday Cage?

I have and let's use a real-world example of one... it is called a car. Your GPS receiver work in it? Of course it does, so your point is of no value. A metal box causes issues due to signal attenuation not because of the electrical properties of a Faraday cage. Change your transmission frequency to one that is transparent to a metal of your choice. Problem solved, unless of course you encounter a different metal. That of course leads to my next point.

What about underground usage? Have you ever experienced GPS dropout when you drive into an underground parking garage (or even just park under a bridge)?

These are not system engineering issues, they are channel engineering issues. My statement was that the embedded system could be made small enough to fit on a gun, not that it would work under every single situation possible. You can always come up with ridiculous channel examples that would cause any system to stop working. You know that, so it is ridiculous to throw out examples that no system, especially a miniaturized one could be expected to operate under. "What if the user puts it in 12' of lead, takes apart each IC and reverse biases each individual transistor, while attaching their nipples to 1000VDC, and burns a dead chicken?" Silly yes, but my point is that your examples are no better than mine because nobody laid out a spec sheet for us to work from.

It would be practically (emphasis on practical) impossible to make a GPS system that would function reliably in a firearm. Add to that the requirement to have a transmitter in the firearm to relay the position to some monitoring station.

See above, yes you can. You just disagree with the results, which is totally different.

Unless the monitoring station is very close, the power requirements for the transmitter would be very high, and battery depletion would be rapid (consider how quickly your cell phone battery dies when you are more than 5 miles from a cell tower).

Only if you were transmitting all the time. Your cell phone is actively searching for a tower and expecting a response, there is no need for the system to do that. In addition, you can easily work out a system where transmissions are timed to maximize battery life. You don't need to communicate your position more that once, say, every 30 minutes. How about once a day even? There were no constraints laid out as to how traceable the system had to be or its range for that matter, just that you could locate the gun. Once a day might be enough, the original post gave no guidelines.

The cost for such a system would be astronomical, considering the number of monitoring antenna sites that would be required.

Why? Force the cell phone companies to accept these coded transmissions from firearms and handle them appropriately. Once again, this is a channel issue, not a system issue. Who says money is an object? You won't let me use cell phone triangulation and want a dedicated GPS transceiver? Fine, then I'll force every state to put up a tower every 500ft. You can STILL engineer a system that will fit onto a handgun and now we have a channel that will track it.

Another poster has already mentioned the problem with supplying power to such an in firearm GPS relay system; criminals will not replace discharged batteries. Photovoltaic and storage capacitors would be too cumbersome to be workable (and would be defeated by keeping the gun in darkness), and we can't have nuclear power in hand held units. Cold Fusion does not exist yet, so just how do you expect to make this device work for more than 24 hours?

Since there seems to be no limitation on the system from your side why not use the weapon as a potential energy source? Require the gun to have fresh batteries to operate. Better yet, pass a law requiring all guns to be kept in a condition where they transmit, if they aren't the police come get you. Make the peasants plug in their weapons to a state approved land line at home, require permission to remove it, and then you are guaranteed that right after it is stolen you can track it for a couple minutes.

As I said, there is a disconnect. You are not addressing the subject of my original post. A system can be engineered to provide the basic functionality required, a GPS coordinate location of a gun. You might not like its performance, which is a completely different issue, but it is, from an engineering standpoint, simple.

Think about putting that GPS stuff on a pocket-gun like a Kel-Tec or NAA.

I wasn't considering those weapons, your point is well taken on those. I was thinking a gun at least the size of a subcompact. Since we have carte blanche here, those guns are now illegal to own. Problem solved. You don't have to like it, but it would work.

Please tell me you are kidding? Even if you made it as small as a cell phone (which for all the parts needed, batteries, etc would be an expensive difficult task) where the hell on a handgun, even a full sized handgun, are you going to stick something the size of a cell phone?

See above, the device wouldn't need near the capabilities of a cell phone, just 1 small part.

Throw your cell phone on the floor a few times see how well it works, then do that a few thousand times. Firing a gun puts off a good bit of shock that would tear up any electronics you put into it. We aren't talking a light or a laser, these things are simple. We are talking complex microchips that don't like being bashed around.

I've designed boards that have undergone stress tests where the they are shocked every 30 seconds at high G levels (imagine being bolted to a couple tons of steel, lifted up 3 feet and then forcefully wached against a base) Then the went through temperature cycling from -40C to 200C. All those boards had modern ICs on them and nary a failure after hunderds upon hundreds of hours of shock and temp cycling. No offense, but modern electronics are much more resiliant than you give them credit for.

EddieCoyle
January 19, 2006, 12:44 AM
Consalvo is an idiot. Previous poster Sean Cloherty got it right. Don't listen to the "legislators" here. There's been a spate of gun murders in the Boston area over the last couple of months and this is just some of the reactionary BS that is to be expected.

Seriously, have you ever heard the mayor of Boston, Tom Menino speak? You need subtitles to understand the guy.

I don't think Springfield Armory would sign anything. The @$$ kissers Colt and Ruger probably will though.

Dude, check your facts. There is not one Colt handgun on the Massachusetts Approved Firearms Roster. They may kiss ass but they certainly don't do it here in the Commonwealth.

As far as engineering the thing goes: Could they fit both the GPS and the lock into a handgun? :neener:

There's no way that something like this would pass (even here) because it would be too easy to disable, and even the elected officials could figure that out. Any self respecting crook that would use a gun in a crime (or steal someone's gun) without disabling the GPS, and then keep it on him is so stupid that he'd be caught anyway.

engineer151515
January 19, 2006, 01:48 PM
.......................



Since there seems to be no limitation on the system from your side why not use the weapon as a potential energy source? Require the gun to have fresh batteries to operate. Better yet, pass a law requiring all guns to be kept in a condition where they transmit, if they aren't the police come get you. Make the peasants plug in their weapons to a state approved land line at home, require permission to remove it, and then you are guaranteed that right after it is stolen you can track it for a couple minutes.

..........................................



I know you were just discussing functional parameters, but can you imagine the response you'll get requiring weapons to have fresh batteries or pre-approved phone log-ins.


That should be worth a couple of pages of resounding howling right here to begin with. :)

Deavis
January 19, 2006, 03:23 PM
I know you were just discussing functional parameters, but can you imagine the response you'll get requiring weapons to have fresh batteries or pre-approved phone log-ins.

Like I said, people may not like the results or performance of the system, but it is a fairly straightforward engineering problem. We could build a bridge to Hawaii, that is simple from an engineering standpoint, however the pros/cons of such a bridge are a completely different story. All I'm saying is that it can be done and I completely agree, it would be a miserable system with huge drawbacks for your average gun owner. That is, of course, the point of such legislation, is it not?

As far as engineering the thing goes: Could they fit both the GPS and the lock into a handgun?

Definitely. Replace the standard trigger/hammer aparatus with a uC controlled solenoid. Infinitely adjustable trigger by simply changing the trigger return spring and an absolute drop saftey all in a convenient pacakge. No moving parts replace (ever!) and just think what you could do if you hacked the uC to enable a "different" firing mode than that programmed at the factory. :D

To unlock the gun, it could be as simple as pressing a switch (probably not the trigger!) in a proscribed sequence to unlock the gun. Perhaps a morse-code like entry scheme, where the uC uses a timer to determine if you have entered a long or short (dit and da? I can't remember) That is a software implementation issue, not a hardware issue.

One of Many
January 19, 2006, 04:13 PM
Actually, yes, I am, with two degrees and experience in embedded system design. I don't think my statement is bogus at all, but after reading it again I can see how my posting in haste led to a large disconnect in the system I envisioned off the cuff and what you are envisioning.

I also have 2 degrees in Electrical/Electronic Engineering and embedded system design. My experience includes design of microprocessor and digital circuitry, and firmware/software to operate that system. Now that we have a situation of the pot calling the kettle black, which do you prefer to be known as?

I submit that you don't need anything more than a transmitter to make this system work. The only thing the weapon has to do is "register" on a local cell phone network to provide GPS positioning information. The cell phone towers provide triangulation, which in turn can provide GPS compatible coordinates. The device wouldn't even have to communicate with the towers if the cell towers were designed to accept the communication at face value.

If you live in a large city, or within 2 miles of an interstate, the cell phone system may be able to receive a signal from a system with the transmit power equivalent to a cell phone. In a rural area away from major highways, there will be no cell phone towers close enough to receive the signal from a gun. I have done a great deal of driving on major state highways and lost cell coverage anywhere from 2 to 5 miles away from the interstate, only picking up coverage when approaching the next small town, 15 miles from the interstate. As far as triangulation, it only indicates which cell towers are receiving a signal; it does not indicate the stength of the signal at the cell tower, or the direction from the cell tower. Cell towers use omni-directional antennas; triangulation requires directional antennas.

Quote:
Have you ever heard of a Faraday Cage?

I have and let's use a real-world example of one... it is called a car. Your GPS receiver work in it? Of course it does, so your point is of no value. A metal box causes issues due to signal attenuation not because of the electrical properties of a Faraday cage. Change your transmission frequency to one that is transparent to a metal of your choice. Problem solved, unless of course you encounter a different metal. That of course leads to my next point.

An automobile body is an imperfect representation of a Faraday cage, but it still provides significant reduction in signal strength to a GPS receiver, causing some channels to drop out, and the system accuracy to degrade. The GPS satelites transmit on government assigned frequencies, which are not easily changed; so do the cell phone sites. In order to make your simple firearms GPS system work, we have to completly change 2 major worldwide/nationwide communications system's operating parameters, and you think this is a PRACTICAL engineering solution.

Quote:
From an engineering/technology standpoint, it's impractical, if not impossible, to have a cost-efficient, practical GPS tracking system on a firearm.

Note that practicality and cost were the 2 considerations in the original post that triggered your flight of fancy.

Quote:
What about underground usage? Have you ever experienced GPS dropout when you drive into an underground parking garage (or even just park under a bridge)?

These are not system engineering issues, they are channel engineering issues. My statement was that the embedded system could be made small enough to fit on a gun, not that it would work under every single situation possible. You can always come up with ridiculous channel examples that would cause any system to stop working. You know that, so it is ridiculous to throw out examples that no system, especially a miniaturized one could be expected to operate under. "What if the user puts it in 12' of lead, takes apart each IC and reverse biases each individual transistor, while attaching their nipples to 1000VDC, and burns a dead chicken?" Silly yes, but my point is that your examples are no better than mine because nobody laid out a spec sheet for us to work from.

If you think that changing the channel frequencies of GPS and cellular telephone systems is not a system engineering issue, just what is a systems engineering issue in your mind? That would require billions of dollars worth of engineering and reconstruction work to accomplish, and result in significant loss to the users of these systems. That in return for a firearms GPS system that only works when all parameters align perfectly. Explain how that is either practical or economic.

Quote:
It would be practically (emphasis on practical) impossible to make a GPS system that would function reliably in a firearm. Add to that the requirement to have a transmitter in the firearm to relay the position to some monitoring station.

See above, yes you can. You just disagree with the results, which is totally different.

Quote:
Unless the monitoring station is very close, the power requirements for the transmitter would be very high, and battery depletion would be rapid (consider how quickly your cell phone battery dies when you are more than 5 miles from a cell tower).

Only if you were transmitting all the time. Your cell phone is actively searching for a tower and expecting a response, there is no need for the system to do that. In addition, you can easily work out a system where transmissions are timed to maximize battery life. You don't need to communicate your position more that once, say, every 30 minutes. How about once a day even? There were no constraints laid out as to how traceable the system had to be or its range for that matter, just that you could locate the gun. Once a day might be enough, the original post gave no guidelines.

Once again the issue of practicality; if it only works during the forth blue moon of the year, then why bother to attempt implementing such a system.

Quote:
The cost for such a system would be astronomical, considering the number of monitoring antenna sites that would be required.

Why? Force the cell phone companies to accept these coded transmissions from firearms and handle them appropriately. Once again, this is a channel issue, not a system issue. Who says money is an object? You won't let me use cell phone triangulation and want a dedicated GPS transceiver? Fine, then I'll force every state to put up a tower every 500ft. You can STILL engineer a system that will fit onto a handgun and now we have a channel that will track it.

Quote:
Another poster has already mentioned the problem with supplying power to such an in firearm GPS relay system; criminals will not replace discharged batteries. Photovoltaic and storage capacitors would be too cumbersome to be workable (and would be defeated by keeping the gun in darkness), and we can't have nuclear power in hand held units. Cold Fusion does not exist yet, so just how do you expect to make this device work for more than 24 hours?

Since there seems to be no limitation on the system from your side why not use the weapon as a potential energy source? Require the gun to have fresh batteries to operate. Better yet, pass a law requiring all guns to be kept in a condition where they transmit, if they aren't the police come get you. Make the peasants plug in their weapons to a state approved land line at home, require permission to remove it, and then you are guaranteed that right after it is stolen you can track it for a couple minutes.

And the reason we have criminals using guns to rob, rape and kill people is that they completly ignore the existing laws; why would they pay any attention to these laws?

As I said, there is a disconnect. You are not addressing the subject of my original post. A system can be engineered to provide the basic functionality required, a GPS coordinate location of a gun. You might not like its performance, which is a completely different issue, but it is, from an engineering standpoint, simple.

It may be simple to glue a chip on a gun, but the rest of the support system is far from simple, and certainly not economical.

Quote:
Think about putting that GPS stuff on a pocket-gun like a Kel-Tec or NAA.

I wasn't considering those weapons, your point is well taken on those. I was thinking a gun at least the size of a subcompact. Since we have carte blanche here, those guns are now illegal to own. Problem solved. You don't have to like it, but it would work.

So would requiring all guns to be 10 feet long and weigh 200 pounds.

Quote:
Please tell me you are kidding? Even if you made it as small as a cell phone (which for all the parts needed, batteries, etc would be an expensive difficult task) where the hell on a handgun, even a full sized handgun, are you going to stick something the size of a cell phone?

See above, the device wouldn't need near the capabilities of a cell phone, just 1 small part.

Quote:
Throw your cell phone on the floor a few times see how well it works, then do that a few thousand times. Firing a gun puts off a good bit of shock that would tear up any electronics you put into it. We aren't talking a light or a laser, these things are simple. We are talking complex microchips that don't like being bashed around.

I've designed boards that have undergone stress tests where the they are shocked every 30 seconds at high G levels (imagine being bolted to a couple tons of steel, lifted up 3 feet and then forcefully wached against a base) Then the went through temperature cycling from -40C to 200C. All those boards had modern ICs on them and nary a failure after hunderds upon hundreds of hours of shock and temp cycling. No offense, but modern electronics are much more resiliant than you give them credit for.

I worked on systems that flew on the very early space shuttle flights. The electronics were not commercial grade. The circuit boards were built with extraordinary care, their housings were machined metal designed to minimize shock and vibration, and when electrical tests were completed on the circuits they were then potted to provide extra protection. These are extremely expensive design and construction methods, employed on limited runs of systems, not mass produced. Again, where is the practicality and economy of such an approach. Just because something is POSSIBLE, doesn't make it feasible. You mentioned that it is always possible to come up with rediculous examples; you were correct, and GPS for firearms is such a case.

EddieCoyle
January 19, 2006, 06:49 PM
OK - I sent the guy an email, and his response stated that the plan was "well thought out", it was "a win for gunowners, because it can be used to retrieve a stolen gun", and that one company had already contacted him, saying their "device is as small as a dime." So, I'm going to have to call BS on this whole thing (on Boston).

Well thought out, huh? I don't know how Consalvo expects to get this working when they can't even get reliable cell phone reception in downtown Boston! (http://www.hearusnow.org/wireless/11/).

...the mayor says coverage is still too spotty. And, with enough memories of places where he's lost reception to make a map in his brain, he toured several city neighborhoods, noting each time his phone lost its signal. Menino argued that reception is the worst in predominantly minority neighborhoods.

The neighborhoods referred to in that article are the ones with the shootings.

Deavis
January 19, 2006, 09:07 PM
I also have 2 degrees in Electrical/Electronic Engineering and embedded system design. My experience includes design of microprocessor and digital circuitry, and firmware/software to operate that system. Now that we have a situation of the pot calling the kettle black, which do you prefer to be known as?

Iíll take the kettle if it is okay with you. Something about pot just turns me off.

If you live in a large city, or within 2 miles of an interstate, the cell phone system may be able to receive a signal from a system with the transmit power equivalent to a cell phone. In a rural area away from major highways, there will be no cell phone towers close enough to receive the signal from a gun. I have done a great deal of driving on major state highways and lost cell coverage anywhere from 2 to 5 miles away from the interstate, only picking up coverage when approaching the next small town, 15 miles from the interstate.

Once again, this is a channel issue, not a systems issue. Keep them straight and distinct. With your education, you know the difference and I have stated multiple times that my evaluation was for the system, not the channel. You can build a channel to suit the system, while not desirable, is still possible. Also, I live 12 miles from a major high way and receive crystal clear cell phone reception, so your experience isnít always typical and neither is mine. However, let me continue before you get upset about range issues.

As far as triangulation, it only indicates which cell towers are receiving a signal; it does not indicate the strength of the signal at the cell tower, or the direction from the cell tower. Cell towers use omni-directional antennas; triangulation requires directional antennas.

You are incorrect. Triangulation is completely possible with cell phone towers, it is done today, and your point about directional v. omni directional antennae is completely moot. Triangulation can be done with either type of antennae. For those who arenít familiar with triangulation, one of the simplest ways to triangulate the location of a device (with some error due to channel interference, mostly multi-pathing) is measuring the time delay between each towerís reception of the signal (TDOA = Time Difference of Arrival). This requires accurate clocks in the cell towers and communication between them, but they already have that. Furthermore, there is no reason you cannot extract the strength of a signal when received at a tower, it is done all the time. Preceived = Ptransmitted/r^2 .If you know the signal strength, you can also narrow down the location even better because you can adjust for evil things in the channel like reflections (Each reflection will change the signal strength slightly and also the phase, which you can then use to your advantage as well!). If you want more info, check out TDOA, AOA, or FDOA as valid ways to triangulate transmitting devices. Also worth knowing, omni directional triangulation requires 3 antennae whereas directional triangulation needs only one in best case scenarios.

An automobile body is an imperfect representation of a Faraday cage, but it still provides significant reduction in signal strength to a GPS receiver, causing some channels to drop out, and the system accuracy to degrade.

Right, so, your counterpoint to my claim that the signal dropout due to a metal box, which was the previous posterís example of a Faraday cage, is more from screening than from the properties of a Faraday cage is what? Please, explain to me what electrical property of the metal box Faraday cage is more important than simple signal attenuation.

The GPS satellites transmit on government assigned frequencies, which are not easily changed; so do the cell phone sites. In order to make your simple firearms GPS system work, we have to completely change 2 major worldwide/nationwide communications system's operating parameters, and you think this is a PRACTICAL engineering solution.

My firearm solution provides GPS coordinates via base station calculations, not firearm based calculations. There is an extremely large difference and one that I pointed out in my last post. As I said, my first reply didnít fully capture what I envisioned when I posted and that was a mistake on my part. I casually used ďGPS solutionĒ when I should have said ďGPS coordinate systemĒ. My examples above have already shown that you do not need to modify any of those systems to provide a GPS coordinate of a gun nor do you need any GPS hardware on the gun to do it.

From an engineering/technology standpoint, it's impractical, if not impossible, to have a cost-efficient, practical GPS tracking system on a firearm.

Note that practicality and cost were the 2 considerations in the original post that triggered your flight of fancy.

My ideas are hardly flights of fancy. Using TDOA, already available on cell towers, costs nothing for us, so what are you talking about?

If you think that changing the channel frequencies of GPS and cellular telephone systems is not a system engineering issue, just what is a systems engineering issue in your mind? That would require billions of dollars worth of engineering and reconstruction work to accomplish, and result in significant loss to the users of these systems. That in return for a firearms GPS system that only works when all parameters align perfectly. Explain how that is either practical or economic.

I was using hyperbole to counter hyperbole. You are now doing the same thing and acting innocent in a vain attempt to prove your argument. Iíve already pointed out above that the components necessary to receive a GPS coordinate of a firearm are available today and would piggy back on existing infrastructure.

Once again the issue of practicality; if it only works during the forth blue moon of the year, then why bother to attempt implementing such a system.

Nobody gave us any operational guidelines. Based on my expectations and what I consider good results, I believe the system in my mind, is more than enough. With advanced cell triangulation techniques, you can get down to 50m of accuracy. You donít like the range of the system, but that is easy to change by modifying the transmit power, number of transmissions, and adding cell towers. The latter isnít cheap but the industry is already doing it so it is, for our purposes, free. Even if we forced them to deploy more towers, that isnít a cost that we must bear to implement our system. In addition, Iíve also already pointed out ways to increase the range of our transmitter and still keep the package compact.

And the reason we have criminals using guns to rob, rape and kill people is that they completely ignore the existing laws; why would they pay any attention to these laws?

This has nothing to do with the engineering of the system. As I said, I understand the consequences of such a system and the changes that would have to be made, but they have nothing to do with the engineering side. HYPERBOLE WARNING! Forcing people to plug in their gun might not be practical to you but from a politicianís POV, it is practical. As a matter of fact, they should be plugged in inside a state-approved gun safe with a 10,000W transmitter! Your opinion only counts if you are the one defining the rules and since you arenít the elected official, your view of practical means nothing. Iím not trying to be harsh, just point out that you canít just look at this with only your personal prejudices.

It may be simple to glue a chip on a gun, but the rest of the support system is far from simple, and certainly not economical.

Iíve discussed this, you can easily leverage current technology to make this happen with results at least as good as current technology allows with no further investment.

So would requiring all guns to be 10 feet long and weigh 200 pounds.

More hyperbole used to counter previous hyperbole that was used for a valid purpose.

I worked on systems that flew on the very early space shuttle flights. The electronics were not commercial grade. The circuit boards were built with extraordinary care, their housings were machined metal designed to minimize shock and vibration, and when electrical tests were completed on the circuits they were then potted to provide extra protection. These are extremely expensive design and construction methods, employed on limited runs of systems, not mass produced.

As someone who has designed for high temp, high stress environments, I can say with certainty that you are incorrect. The forces involved in a gun firing are nothing compared to what a modern mass produced FR-4 PCB is capable of withstanding. If an M3 or Lasermax can take the pounding, so could this device. You donít even need to go into the pot/frame zone to protect the electronics because where you mount/integrate it means everything.

No offense to you personally, but the difference between wire-bonded THT ceramic packaged electronics available on the early space shuttle flights and current TSSOP/SSOP SMT devices is night and day. If that experience is your analogue to current technology, Iím sorry but it is a very poor indicator of what is possible today in high stress environments with modern ICs. Iím not trying to demean you or degrade your work but Iím merely pointing out that if you havenít worked with modern ICs in a high stress environment, which I have, then your frame of reference given is not, in my opinion, as up to date as it could be for this discussion. I've also worked with potting and framing, so I know exactly what you are talking about.

Again, where is the practicality and economy of such an approach. Just because something is POSSIBLE, doesn't make it feasible. You mentioned that it is always possible to come up with ridiculous examples; you were correct, and GPS for firearms is such a case.

I think I have proven your last sentence more than a little incorrect. Off the shelf components, small package, no new channel hardware needed. Feel free to disagree but I think I make a strong case.

Jim Diver
January 20, 2006, 12:45 AM
Anyone found a link to a news story on this dumb politician's idea or a link to the proposed legislation?

Manedwolf
January 20, 2006, 01:12 AM
Yup - the gun makers have a "corporate mindset" (that is, profit over principles; good, old-fashioned GREED).

No doubt some greedy ones at the top of the heap at "Brand X Guns" would drop to their knees, break the boycott and service the boycotted cities and their police departments. Selling themselves to the highest bidder.

It seems that the gun maker's outlook is "When guns are outlawed - we'll sell them to 'The Government.' " They know this is where the true money lies, and that seems to be their priority.:barf: :barf:

Currently, to get around DVD region restrictions (which are NOT based on a law, just an agreement among DVD makers who wanted to increase profit by preventing grey market global sales), you often have to purchase a thumbs-nose-at-standards player from the Asian market via eBay or the like.

I really, really hope it doesn't become that the only way to get, say, a non-chipped handgun is to buy a foreign knockoff, too. :barf:

And I think the first time someone chips a true 1911, JMB himself will come back from the grave and go after lawmakers. I hope.

benewton
January 20, 2006, 03:35 AM
Another EE joins in.

I really don't see the problem here, from a technological point of view.

Keep the GPS receiver, and download periodic positioning information into the WOM (Write Only Memory).

Then use RFID technology, which is everywhere, to recharge the GPS power, read. and then report the contents of the WOM over the web, and you're done.

See? Simple, isn't it?



The whole basic premise is gun control, and that's already proven to be a non starter. No way in hell technology can, or should even try, to support a known losing idea into a winning one.




Oh, wait, there's the Apple computer....

Rem700SD
January 20, 2006, 05:22 AM
I'm not an engineer, so I'm just fishing here. What happens when of the chips or devices mentioned is placed into a mylar(?) bag, like the types that electronics/circuit boards are stored/sold in?

benewton
January 20, 2006, 05:52 AM
Electro static discharge protection: the devices are very sensitive to "sparks".

As in walking across a rug.

So the bag protects them from that, and they're not operational in that configuration.


The whole idea is so easy to beat that it simply doesn't make sense to even try.

LAK
January 20, 2006, 08:13 AM
See where "smart" guns are headed ;)

A trial balloon. And when it don't fly; they simply roll it out again at a later time when the wind is more "favorable". And again - until they can make it fly.

-------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

outofbattery
January 20, 2006, 09:55 AM
Given the number of All Lawful Purpose LTC's that are granted in Boston,it sure will make a difference in the number of residents walking around illegally armed I'm sure...:scrutiny: Of course it's just fine for us non-Bostonians to buy handguns without the proposed GPS transmitter and carry in the city...Besides,I thought all the gun crime was being commited with ones bought in NH and ME?

I sure hope I don't end up having to walk around looking like this if I want to carry in MA:what:

http://www.planearium2.de/pics/pics-101-3.jpg

shermacman
January 20, 2006, 10:16 AM
Jim Diver:
Anyone found a link to a news story on this dumb politician's idea or a link to the proposed legislation?

These two will boil your blood:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/01/12/firearms_tracking_device_urged/

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=120968


This one will give hope that there is at least one more sane person in Massachusetts (besides me, of course).
http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2006/01/boston-city-councilor-goes-off-deep.html

afasano
January 20, 2006, 11:58 AM
Consalvo is only talking to the voters that agree with him. :rolleyes: What else is new? :confused:

One of Many
January 20, 2006, 03:10 PM
My firearm solution provides GPS coordinates via base station calculations, not firearm based calculations. There is an extremely large difference and one that I pointed out in my last post. As I said, my first reply didn’t fully capture what I envisioned when I posted and that was a mistake on my part. I casually used “GPS solution” when I should have said “GPS coordinate system”. My examples above have already shown that you do not need to modify any of those systems to provide a GPS coordinate of a gun nor do you need any GPS hardware on the gun to do it.

It seems that you are now saying that GPS on the gun is not part of your solution; you will use the GPS coordinates of fixed locations (antenna towers for the cell phone system), and triangulation from at least 3 cell towers to determine an extremely coarse location of the gun. With fixed tower locations, GPS is not needed to determine location, they are already known. The coordinate system has nothing to do with the method used to determine location in that coordinate system.

My ideas are hardly flights of fancy. Using TDOA, already available on cell towers, costs nothing for us, so what are you talking about?

I am talking about the cost to the whole of society, not just to the gun owners. Your techniques would require a huge cost to be absorbed by the taxpayers in general, not just a small subset called gun owners. The current ability of the cell system to triangulate is extremely coarse, and gets worse the farther away from the cell towers the originating signal transmits from; if the transmitter is located outside the triangle of towers the position determination is probably unusable. In a densely populated area, a location inside the triangle with an error of 50 meters would include a large number of locations and people that were completely unrelated to the gun. Do you go in and arrest everyone inside that 50 meter diameter range and search every home and business?


Nobody gave us any operational guidelines. Based on my expectations and what I consider good results, I believe the system in my mind, is more than enough. With advanced cell triangulation techniques, you can get down to 50m of accuracy. You don’t like the range of the system, but that is easy to change by modifying the transmit power, number of transmissions, and adding cell towers. The latter isn’t cheap but the industry is already doing it so it is, for our purposes, free. Even if we forced them to deploy more towers, that isn’t a cost that we must bear to implement our system. In addition, I’ve also already pointed out ways to increase the range of our transmitter and still keep the package compact.

You previously said that the gun transmitters would not transmit continously, just periodically, in order to slow the rate of power depletion in the gun mounted transmitter, and that the transmit power would be lower than that of cell phones. That requires more sensitive cell tower receivers. In an area with multiple gun transmitters, each gun must be uniquely identifiable by its transmission, so that requires some sort of coding system in both the gun transmitter and the cellular receiver, in order for triangulation to work. The cellular receivers must separate and identify possibly thousands of gun transmissions arriving in close time proximity, then syncronize the data for each firearm with multiple other celluar receiving systems. Do you need a supercomputer to process this data, just to get within 50 meters of a gun transmitter?

This has nothing to do with the engineering of the system. As I said, I understand the consequences of such a system and the changes that would have to be made, but they have nothing to do with the engineering side. HYPERBOLE WARNING! Forcing people to plug in their gun might not be practical to you but from a politician’s POV, it is practical. As a matter of fact, they should be plugged in inside a state-approved gun safe with a 10,000W transmitter! Your opinion only counts if you are the one defining the rules and since you aren’t the elected official, your view of practical means nothing. I’m not trying to be harsh, just point out that you can’t just look at this with only your personal prejudices.

It looks like you are disregarding the SOCIAL ENGINEERING side of this, and concentrating only on the possible TECHNOLGICAL aspects of locating each gun by GPS methods (and even then your solution has nothing to do with GPS). As far as your statement that the only opinion that counts is that of the elected official, it is just as erroneous as your distinction between systems and channels (channels are subsets of systems). The PEOPLE that elect the politicians and pay the TAXES are the ones whose opinion is important, not the engineer or politician that can't see the forrest for the trees.

One of Many
January 20, 2006, 03:24 PM
Another EE joins in.

I really don't see the problem here, from a technological point of view.

Keep the GPS receiver, and download periodic positioning information into the WOM (Write Only Memory).

Then use RFID technology, which is everywhere, to recharge the GPS power, read. and then report the contents of the WOM over the web, and you're done.

See? Simple, isn't it?



The whole basic premise is gun control, and that's already proven to be a non starter. No way in hell technology can, or should even try, to support a known losing idea into a winning one.




Oh, wait, there's the Apple computer....

RFID is not as viable as you believe. In order to obtain small sizes, the RFID tags are limited to ranges of less that a foot from the transmitter that they obtain power from and respond with data. The maximum ranges (such as those used to track pallets in warehouses and trucks) require large power packs and large transmitter antennas. RFID is used primarily in large commercial outlets and warehouses, and those are areas that typically prohibit firearms within the premises.

The power supplied to the RFID tag is just sufficient to power the device while it is in range of the master unit. There would be inadequate power transmitted to charge batteries or capacitor packs (again these would be large units) that would allow tracking information to be obtained and stored for days between readout stations.

I agree with your statement: No way in hell technology can, or should even try, to support a known losing idea into a winning one.

Nathaniel Firethorn
January 20, 2006, 05:03 PM
GPS and RFID could both be defeated by a piece of aluminum foil wrapped around the gun.

- NF

shermacman
January 20, 2006, 05:22 PM
Nathaniel Firethorn
GPS and RFID could both be defeated by a piece of aluminum foil wrapped around the gun.

But...that would be illegal!

LAK
January 20, 2006, 09:46 PM
.... The power supplied to the RFID tag is just sufficient to power the device while it is in range of the master unit. There would be inadequate power transmitted to charge batteries or capacitor packs (again these would be large units) that would allow tracking information to be obtained and stored for days between readout stations....
Tracking in many places, for a great number of people would be quite easy along public roadways and key areas like entrances and exits to buildings and other facilities in the urban environment.

Information storage is already dirt cheap, and getting cheaper all the time.
--------------------------------------

http:/ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedtstates.org

One of Many
January 20, 2006, 11:26 PM
Tracking in many places, for a great number of people would be quite easy along public roadways and key areas like entrances and exits to buildings and other facilities in the urban environment.

Information storage is already dirt cheap, and getting cheaper all the time.


You overlooked the problem of the distance between the micro sized RFID tags and the base stations (a matter of inches - not feet); so roadside base stations would not be feasible.

Most public buildings do not have RFID base stations, and if you are going to install new technology, why not just have the standard metal detectors like they use at airports and courtrooms? Or the newer vision screening systems that can see right through a persons clothing; just set up an image analysis program to compare objects to stored master patterns, and alarm when a match is found. Then nothing would be required to be added to the guns, and even older guns could be detected. This is much more feasible from a technology standpoint than adding RFID tags or transmitters to firearms. It would be a massive invasion of the privacy rights of everyone passing through the detection system, and a huge expense, so it will never be implemented, just like the so called GPS or transmitter system would never be implemented either.

Deavis
January 21, 2006, 12:04 AM
It seems that you are now saying that GPS on the gun is not part of your solution; you will use the GPS coordinates of fixed locations (antenna towers for the cell phone system), and triangulation from at least 3 cell towers to determine an extremely coarse location of the gun. With fixed tower locations, GPS is not needed to determine location, they are already known. The coordinate system has nothing to do with the method used to determine location in that coordinate system.

You have not been reading my posts. I have been saying since my second post what the relationship between GPS and my system is. The lawmaker wants, at the end of the day, a GPS coordinate of a gun and my solution provides exactly that. That aside, there is absolutely no reason you couldnít integrate an entire GPS solution onto a full-size Glock type gun, my point is that you donít need it. If you donít believe that it is possible to integrate a full GPS system into the space then letís haul out some datasheets and do a rough layout of the components. Iíll be willing to bet you we can make it fit onto the dustcover of any modern gun without really breaking a sweat.

Now, Iím going to say it one more time, so it is crystal clear, the end product of the system is a GPS based coordinate Joe Enforcer can find, rather than 3.2us from tower1, 2.2us from tower 2, etcÖ You give him a coordinate that he can map on his fancy GPS receiver in his patrol car and track you down.

I am talking about the cost to the whole of society, not just to the gun owners. Your techniques would require a huge cost to be absorbed by the taxpayers in general, not just a small subset called gun owners.

What costs are you referring to? Please, outline exactly how leveraging existing technology would turn this into a huge cost for society. Certainly, software changes would have to be made, but the hardware is already out there and that is the truly expensive part. The device is paid for by the gun manufacturer and not borne by society at large. Besides, what is a couple million dollars in code changes? Maybe they make the gun manufacturers pay for this safety device infrastructure, why not? Donít say, ďThat wouldnít be practical, it would drive up the costs of guns for everyone and then people couldnít buy them!Ē Guess what, that is practical to some people, just not you.

We spend billions on useless public education programs and you expect me to cringe at a few million to ensure the safety of every man, woman, and child in the US? Imagine! Guns crime, a thing of the past! Soccer Moms everywhere would be holding bake sales to pay for this. Once again, you are letting your prejudice cloud your view of practicality. Many people, like it or not, would wet themselves for this system.

The current ability of the cell system to triangulate is extremely coarse, and gets worse the farther away from the cell towers the originating signal transmits from; if the transmitter is located outside the triangle of towers the position determination is probably unusable. In a densely populated area, a location inside the triangle with an error of 50 meters would include a large number of locations and people that were completely unrelated to the gun. Do you go in and arrest everyone inside that 50 meter diameter range and search every home and business?

Once again, you are trying to derail the idea by using your personal prejudice against it instead of logical reasoning. ďWell, you would have to cordon off vast areas to find that gun and people wouldnít allow that!Ē Youíd be surprised at what people will do for some perceived safety. Donít believe me? Then you werenít watching TV after 9/11. Iíll digress on that one and provide you a technological fix instead.

A simple solution is to arm the police with a scanner that can detect the transmission. Now you just get in the general area and bingo, you can home in down to the inch. You are going to say, ďBut the scanner costs money, it is a whole new system to implement.Ē Sorry pal, the technology needed to implement a hand held scanner is both readily available and cheap, just like our transmitter parts. Mass produced, you are talking nothing compared to saving the life of one innocent child. Once again, ďMr. and Mrs. America, we need this money to keep your children safeÖĒ The dollars would roll in. ďIf it only saves one!Ē Police see their budgets rise, always a good thing to them, and now they can disarm people at will. Now, Iíve addressed both the social and technological parts of this issue and have shown it is STILL practical to do this despite your objections.

You previously said that the gun transmitters would not transmit continuously, just periodically, in order to slow the rate of power depletion in the gun mounted transmitter, and that the transmit power would be lower than that of cell phones. That requires more sensitive cell tower receivers.

I did not say what was in bold as a specific design spec at all, regardless your following statement is of no consequence. There is no reason that the transmission canít be stronger than normal cells and transmitter still last months on modern batteries. Remember, a majority of cell power is used searching for signals and the display. Our device has neither of those shortcomings and your counterpoint is ineffectual.

In an area with multiple gun transmitters, each gun must be uniquely identifiable by its transmission, so that requires some sort of coding system in both the gun transmitter and the cellular receiver, in order for triangulation to work. The cellular receivers must separate and identify possibly thousands of gun transmissions arriving in close time proximity, then synchronize the data for each firearm with multiple other cellular receiving systems.

Come on, certainly you realize the futility of what you are saying in the face of modern computing power and technology. Coding a unique ID for every gun isnít even a necessity for this system to work (We can discuss the statistics of a repeat code based on active regional ID distribution schemes if you want but I think it is unnecessary since you should know exactly what my point will be given your expertise) but if you wanted it, you could easily do it. Triangulation algorithms are fast and fiber has lots of bandwidth. I know you want it really bad, but you cannot dismiss this as fancy. This is NOT a challenging technological device or location scheme to implement. The components are available, the infrastructure exists, and there are people who would love to build it. You are grasping at the proverbial straws on that one.


It looks like you are disregarding the SOCIAL ENGINEERING side of this, and concentrating only on the possible TECHNOLGICAL aspects of locating each gun by GPS methods (and even then your solution has nothing to do with GPS).

Iíve covered this before. You want so badly to feel that this is an impossible task but the truth is that it isnít. All of my statements have been geared towards the implementation of a system, which was the challenge. In addition, I have, since you keep bringing it up, shown that the social implications are easily dealt with as well. You donít like my system and you donít have to like what it means for you as a gun owner but it doesnít mean that the system isnít practical and that people wouldnít support it. Furthermore, if you would take the time to read my posts and digest them rather than banging off shallow parries, you would understand the GPS portion of the system, as I have been extremely clear since my 2nd post.

As far as your statement that the only opinion that counts is that of the elected official, it is just as erroneous as your distinction between systems and channels (channels are subsets of systems).

Wrong and you know it. I have defined my system as the device on the gun and left everything else out of the picture because I can disregard it based on my system capabilities. It is just like canceling out second order effects. Based on my definitions, everything between the gun and the cell tower is the channel. It is black and white. My system extends to the end of the transmitting antenna and the channel starts after that. Iíve proven the channel is of no consequence to the operation of my device, therefore I can exclude it from my system.

You want to change my definitions to make your arguments look stronger and use that deception to diminish my qualifications and thus ability to counter your points. It wonít work, because you have to play by my definitions to critique my proposal. I defined what is first and second order here, so you can either approach it that way and provide solid counters or continue to play the word game. It doesnít improve your position one bit.

The PEOPLE that elect the politicians and pay the TAXES are the ones whose opinion is important, not the engineer or politician that can't see the forest for the trees.

Personal prejudice, yet again. Just because you are unwilling to pay the price for this system, doesnít mean a majority of Americans are. Iím not even going to waste the space positing the numerous times Americans have traded freedom for security, there is no need to do that on this board. If you need proof that people will find this practical and cost effective, letís go post our ideas over on DU or any anti-gun website. Youíll see very quickly that your opinion is not shared by everyone. Canada spent a billion on a gun registry and despite some belly-aching, it isnít going anywhere. Your opinion, while important to you, is of absolutely no consequence in this debate. Your opinion will not sway Schumer, Kennedy, or anyone else that wants to see this implemented anymore than it did during the AWB bill. If you truly believe your voice counts when it comes to anti-gun legislators, then Iíve got news for youÖ You are living in a fantasy world.

I see the forest and I see the trees. Step back, calm down, realize I donít like the system anymore that you, do some critical thinking, maybe a bit of research, and you will see that my system, while repulsive to gun owners, is feasible and meets the requirements set forth.

Deavis
January 21, 2006, 12:11 AM
It would be a massive invasion of the privacy rights of everyone passing through the detection system, and a huge expense, so it will never be implemented, just like the so called GPS or transmitter system would never be implemented either.

Just another example of having a short-sighted view on this subject. People are already conditioned to accept metal detectors. It won't be long before they accept them everywhere and happily pay for their installation. Taxes would just keep going up and as long as Kyle Six-Pack can still watch WCW and drink a beer at night, he won't care about his privacy lost. He never cared about it in the first place.

You are looking at this from a very one-sided and narrow-minded position, i.e. your own shoes. Step out of your gun-loving boots for a second and think like an engineer rather than a NRA cheerleader. People will accept these ideas, it is simply serving them with the proper gravy and side items. These systems are merely 1 election and a team of dedicated engineers away from happening with modern technology.

LAK
January 21, 2006, 08:13 AM
You overlooked the problem of the distance between the micro sized RFID tags and the base stations (a matter of inches - not feet); so roadside base stations would not be feasible.

Most public buildings do not have RFID base stations, and if you are going to install new technology, why not just have the standard metal detectors like they use at airports and courtrooms? Or the newer vision screening systems that can see right through a persons clothing; just set up an image analysis program to compare objects to stored master patterns, and alarm when a match is found. Then nothing would be required to be added to the guns, and even older guns could be detected. This is much more feasible from a technology standpoint than adding RFID tags or transmitters to firearms. It would be a massive invasion of the privacy rights of everyone passing through the detection system, and a huge expense, so it will never be implemented, just like the so called GPS or transmitter system would never be implemented either.
I think you are overlooking just how large an RFID could be fitted into a polymer pistol grip/frame or revolver stock - or rifle stock. It could have more than a micro-sized antenna moulded throughout for that matter - and even drawing some power from photovoltaics. How big is an EZ tag?

While many public buildings do not have RFID stations, many commercial facilities do. Now imagine if the government offered to subsidize a small fraction of their bills in return for supplying data? And the public purse is so deep, a lucky contractor or two to install lots of RFID stations (all in the name of fighting the "war" you know) probably wouldn't get but an amendment or two, maybe a rider, in the funding bill.

Metal detectors would only catch people taking them into specific buildings and controlled areas. This would not monitor, store and identify traffic all over the city, state - or country ;)

Privacy? Is having your naked body displayed to an operator on a screen not an invasion of privacy? Public roads and other State or Federally owned and regulated means of travel, as we know, have been more or less ruled to be open season with no bag limits when it comes to "conditions of use". You can not walk on a state highway - or even ride a bicycle, and that means a motor vehicle and a driver's license. And consent. When you get on a train, plane or ship, guess what; you are subject to search as a condition.

Monitoring the gun traffic of every citizen in real time is ultimately what these people really want. And things like this are on their path to that objective. I think you underestimate just how serious these people are about control.

And reading Deavis's posts; I must agree with him; if the law says "Firearms without this technology can not be possessed, sold or otherwise transferred without a special "collectors' license" - everything else would be illegal.

The NRA would put up a mock fight, get the "special license" provision amended (so everyone could celebrate the "victory") to cost less or to include "military style weapons", whatever. Then, ten years later, would be saying how good the GPS/RFID guns are, and that only a criminal or terrorist would want to carry or hunt with anything else. Just like they did with the '68 and other Acts.

People in general would be waving the flags. Afterall; anyone not supporting the program, buying the costlier guns, and clammering for funding for the infrastructure, would be made to look like a badguy, a criminal. A radical. A terrorist.

-----------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

One of Many
January 21, 2006, 04:49 PM
...
Now, Iím going to say it one more time, so it is crystal clear, the end product of the system is a GPS based coordinate Joe Enforcer can find, rather than 3.2us from tower1, 2.2us from tower 2, etcÖ You give him a coordinate that he can map on his fancy GPS receiver in his patrol car and track you down.

You continue to misrepresent position information (MAP coordinates - and there is more than one coordinate system for mapping geographic location) as GPS coordinates. The Global Positioning Satellite system is a series of satellites that transmit information to receivers, that allows the receivers to determine geographic position at the receiver. That position is then translated into the chosen map coordinate system the user prefers. Users must be consistent with the coordinate system in order to share position information and locate the same geographical place. The same geographical place can have more than one GPS coordinate; a GPS coordinate may map to more than one geographical place; this depends on the mapping coordinates selected by the user of the GPS receiver/mapper.

...

Once again, you are trying to derail the idea by using your personal prejudice against it instead of logical reasoning. ďWell, you would have to cordon off vast areas to find that gun and people wouldnít allow that!Ē Youíd be surprised at what people will do for some perceived safety. Donít believe me? Then you werenít watching TV after 9/11. Iíll digress on that one and provide you a technological fix instead.

A simple solution is to arm the police with a scanner that can detect the transmission. Now you just get in the general area and bingo, you can home in down to the inch. You are going to say, ďBut the scanner costs money, it is a whole new system to implement.Ē Sorry pal, the technology needed to implement a hand held scanner is both readily available and cheap, just like our transmitter parts. Mass produced, you are talking nothing compared to saving the life of one innocent child. Once again, ďMr. and Mrs. America, we need this money to keep your children safeÖĒ The dollars would roll in. ďIf it only saves one!Ē Police see their budgets rise, always a good thing to them, and now they can disarm people at will. Now, Iíve addressed both the social and technological parts of this issue and have shown it is STILL practical to do this despite your objections.

You seem to keep adding to the system; you started out with a GPS receiver, then cellular tower triangulation systems, then requiring more cellular towers, now hand held scanner systems in the hands of the police. The detection system keeps getting bigger and bigger in both monetary cost and civil liberties, as you counter my "personal prejudices".

...

Come on, certainly you realize the futility of what you are saying in the face of modern computing power and technology. Coding a unique ID for every gun isnít even a necessity for this system to work (We can discuss the statistics of a repeat code based on active regional ID distribution schemes if you want but I think it is unnecessary since you should know exactly what my point will be given your expertise) but if you wanted it, you could easily do it. Triangulation algorithms are fast and fiber has lots of bandwidth. I know you want it really bad, but you cannot dismiss this as fancy. This is NOT a challenging technological device or location scheme to implement. The components are available, the infrastructure exists, and there are people who would love to build it. You are grasping at the proverbial straws on that one.

We do not share a common education or work experience, therefore our "expertise" is different, as should be obvious due to our differing point of view relating to both the technical feasibility and the social feasibility.

You seem to think the reusing ID codes is OK if you can spread them over a large geographical area; unless you can guarantee that guns will always be confined to those seperate areas, the system fails when two or more guns with the same ID show up in the same geographic area.


Iíve covered this before. You want so badly to feel that this is an impossible task but the truth is that it isnít. All of my statements have been geared towards the implementation of a system, which was the challenge. In addition, I have, since you keep bringing it up, shown that the social implications are easily dealt with as well. You donít like my system and you donít have to like what it means for you as a gun owner but it doesnít mean that the system isnít practical and that people wouldnít support it. Furthermore, if you would take the time to read my posts and digest them rather than banging off shallow parries, you would understand the GPS portion of the system, as I have been extremely clear since my 2nd post.

Amazing. It seems that you have developed the ability to read minds at a distance over the internet; you attribute my rebuttals to "prejudice"; you say I am not reading your posts, and that my rebuttals are shallow (in addition to saying I know what your points are due to my expertise - I quess this means in your mind I am a liar).

You keep saying the cost to society (monetary and cilvil liberties) would be gladly accepted by the populace; the price you demand that society accept to implement your solution is the creation of a police state, where no one has any liberty at all - I am not ready to accept that citizens of the United States will willingly submit to slavery.

...

Wrong and you know it. I have defined my system as the device on the gun and left everything else out of the picture because I can disregard it based on my system capabilities. It is just like canceling out second order effects. Based on my definitions, everything between the gun and the cell tower is the channel. It is black and white. My system extends to the end of the transmitting antenna and the channel starts after that. Iíve proven the channel is of no consequence to the operation of my device, therefore I can exclude it from my system.

You are self contradictory here. You say the system is only the part on the gun, and everything else is the channel. Yet you require modifications to the channel equipment (hardware and software) as well as additional equipment (handheld scanners in police hands). Using only your "system" the guns could not be located. MY defintion of a system includes ALL of the subsystems and components necessary to acomplish the desired goal. I treat the gun mounted portion as a subsystem; The "channel" - the cellular system that performs the triangulation and discrimination of unique gun IDs is a subsystem; The processing computers are a susbsystem; any scanners the police might require for improving resolution are a susbsystem.

The also treat the Constitution and our civil liberties as a subsystem as far as the overall implementation of the stated objective of tracking the location of each and every gun in the hands of the civilian population.

You want to change my definitions to make your arguments look stronger and use that deception to diminish my qualifications and thus ability to counter your points. It wonít work, because you have to play by my definitions to critique my proposal. I defined what is first and second order here, so you can either approach it that way and provide solid counters or continue to play the word game. It doesnít improve your position one bit.

Sorry, but your idea of a system doesn't seem to meet the standard use of the term. I have not attempted to decieve anyone, despite your attempts to lable me as a liar. You are starting to sound like the little child who invites others to his house to play a game, and then changes the rules when he discovers he is losing.

Personal prejudice, yet again. Just because you are unwilling to pay the price for this system, doesnít mean a majority of Americans are. Iím not even going to waste the space positing the numerous times Americans have traded freedom for security, there is no need to do that on this board. If you need proof that people will find this practical and cost effective, letís go post our ideas over on DU or any anti-gun website. Youíll see very quickly that your opinion is not shared by everyone. Canada spent a billion on a gun registry and despite some belly-aching, it isnít going anywhere. Your opinion, while important to you, is of absolutely no consequence in this debate. Then why are you taking the time to debate me? Your opinion will not sway Schumer, Kennedy, or anyone else that wants to see this implemented anymore than it did during the AWB bill. If you truly believe your voice counts when it comes to anti-gun legislators, then Iíve got news for youÖ You are living in a fantasy world.

I suppose that YOUR personal prejudice in favor of the "system" you propose has nothing to do with the supposed feasibility and practicality either?

There is nothing quite like appealing to an 'impartial arbitrator' to settle a dispute, is there? Naturally the ultra left wing liberals will embrace any sort of program that gives them more money and control of society. Why didn't you propose submitting your concept to an ultra right conservative group? The answer, of course, is that given a choice of judge or arbitor, people will select one that agrees with them - but that is not the way our social system is designed to work.

I see the forest and I see the trees. Step back, calm down, realize I donít like the system anymore that you, do some critical thinking, maybe a bit of research, and you will see that my system, while repulsive to gun owners, is feasible and meets the requirements set forth.

I have been critical of your system, and not based on hysterics or fuming rage. Your system has elements that are reprehensible to anyone who truly loves personal freedom and responsibility, and respects the Constitution which quides and directs this nation. I am not ready to destroy this nation just so a bunch of politicians can gather more money and power to themselves, and I suspect that a majority of citizens feel the same way I do.

I also believe that the technology necessary is not as well developed as you claim. Perhaps with your expertise you could create a prototype system and sell it to the police state as a way to monitor the perverts that commit sexual attacks on women and children. That should be sufficent proof that the technology is capable of meeting your design objective.



I do not believe that any of my comments have been personal attacks against Deavis. I have tried to address the technological and social issues without adding any value statements regarding Deavis.

My perception of his comments is that he has stooped to personal attacks against my character and my intelligence. Granted that we have differing education and experience, and some ignorance on the current capability of technology in both our cases; I perceive that him stating that my position is 'prejudiced', that I am not using 'logical reasoning', that my thoughts are 'shallow parries', and that I am 'deceiving' people by purportedly 'changing his defintions', does constitute a personal attack by Deavis against me.

Even though we (engineers in general) make our living using technology to solve problems, we need to consider that not every problem is best solved with technology. We don't need to stoop to the level of 'Kill the Messenger' if we disagree on the message being conveyed. Disparaging the messenger is a technique we see constantly when the merits of an arguement are going against the one resorting to denigrating his opposition.

Try to keep this discourse civil.

Art Eatman
January 21, 2006, 05:05 PM
Yup. Civil. Civil Is Good. My threshold for gettin' ungruntled keeps gettin' lower.

Small, insignificant prize to whomever catches the literary allusion.

:), Art

One of Many
January 21, 2006, 05:11 PM
Just another example of having a short-sighted view on this subject. People are already conditioned to accept metal detectors. It won't be long before they accept them everywhere and happily pay for their installation. Taxes would just keep going up and as long as Kyle Six-Pack can still watch WCW and drink a beer at night, he won't care about his privacy lost. He never cared about it in the first place.

I do not think the sterotyping the general population with a bigoted characterization is appropriate or necessary to the subject at hand. I also do not believe that the general population is willing to accept metal detectors or other technology that infringes on their privacy in the common everyday aspects of their lives. They begrudgingly accept it in courthouses and general transportation areas, but people have the choice of not using public transportation and thus maintaining their privacy; the general population spends very little time entering courthouses, so that also is a moot point.

You are looking at this from a very one-sided and narrow-minded position, i.e. your own shoes. Step out of your gun-loving boots for a second and think like an engineer rather than a NRA cheerleader. People will accept these ideas, it is simply serving them with the proper gravy and side items. These systems are merely 1 election and a team of dedicated engineers away from happening with modern technology.

Unlike you, I am looking at this from a greater perspective than 'just an engineer'. I am not an NRA cheerleader; there are areas where I disagree with the NRA, but I still think that gun owners are better off with them working the political side, than we would be without them.

Some people would accept these ideas, and I believe them to be a significant minority; certainly a change of such magnitude in our civil liberties is going to require more than 1 election to accomplish, regardless of the technological aspects.

One of Many
January 21, 2006, 05:38 PM
RFID. This seems to be a 'magic' technology that has caught everyones attention lately, due to the MSM reports. I did some research on this for my employer, and discovered severe limitations on what RFID is capable of. There are different frequency ranges available, with benefits and restrictions differing for each type.

The maximum range has already been a topic of discussion in this thread. That range is a function of frequency (and size is also). Then there is the problem of sensitivity to moisture in the air, and nearby metalic structures.

Another area of concern is Health, since the transmitted power of the base station required to achieve long distances (over a foot) could be detrimental in the long term to people constantly exposed to it (that is why handheld radios and cell phones are limited in output power).

Placing an RFID tag in the grip of a gun would attenuate the power reaching the tag, due to the human body acting as a shield; this would require greater base station power to offset the loss, subjecting everyone in the area to possibly dangerous RF exposure.

Placing the gun mounted antenna on a metalic surface would create problems as well, and any wires between antenna, chip set, and batteries would be subject to breakage due to constant flexing and the resultant work hardening.

While this technology is improving constantly, I don't think it is feasible at this time, for tracking individual firearms.

LAK
January 22, 2006, 04:31 PM
RFID. This seems to be a 'magic' technology that has caught everyones attention lately, due to the MSM reports. I did some research on this for my employer, and discovered severe limitations on what RFID is capable of. There are different frequency ranges available, with benefits and restrictions differing for each type.

The maximum range has already been a topic of discussion in this thread. That range is a function of frequency (and size is also). Then there is the problem of sensitivity to moisture in the air, and nearby metalic structures.

Another area of concern is Health, since the transmitted power of the base station required to achieve long distances (over a foot) could be detrimental in the long term to people constantly exposed to it (that is why handheld radios and cell phones are limited in output power).

Placing an RFID tag in the grip of a gun would attenuate the power reaching the tag, due to the human body acting as a shield; this would require greater base station power to offset the loss, subjecting everyone in the area to possibly dangerous RF exposure.

Placing the gun mounted antenna on a metalic surface would create problems as well, and any wires between antenna, chip set, and batteries would be subject to breakage due to constant flexing and the resultant work hardening.

While this technology is improving constantly, I don't think it is feasible at this time, for tracking individual firearms.
Toll road EZ tags - how big are they? What is their range? What is their suseptibility to disruption or deterioration as you describe? Are EZ tags an RF health hazard?

-------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

carebear
January 22, 2006, 04:57 PM
Art,

Chapter 26 "Christmas always comes too soon..."

Deavis
January 24, 2006, 03:54 AM
I have been critical of your system, and not based on hysterics or fuming rage. Your system has elements that are reprehensible to anyone who truly loves personal freedom and responsibility, and respects the Constitution which quides and directs this nation. I am not ready to destroy this nation just so a bunch of politicians can gather more money and power to themselves, and I suspect that a majority of citizens feel the same way I do.

Personally, I could not care less about GPS on guns or making personal attacks on you. The fact that you read rage into my writing shows me that you are not used to hard review of your comments. None of my statements are in any way directed towards you as a person, however, I will question your engineering capabilities with little or no regard for how it makes you feel. You tossed your hat into the ring as an engineer, I expect you to be able to defend your opinions like an engineer.

Also, my style of writing is to the point, concise, and sharp. If it offends you that I am calling you out on technical items and have no tolerance for sweeping dismissals of well-founded technology, then I suggest you attend a couple hard core design reviews to get your engineering stamina back up. Making a case on already disproved points is the antithesis of a good engineer fighting for/against a design.

What I really do care about is someone who claims to be a fellow engineer using his credentials to back an ideology rather than debate cold hard facts. Your statement bears out exactly what I said in my previous posts, you are not looking at this problem from the standpoint of an engineer but rather a gun-lover. I was completely accurate in saying that you are prejudiced against the system and not looking at it like an engineer based on the above. Furthermore, you are throwing out weak arguments that, as an engineer who claims to be in the know, should be ashamed of. For instance,

You continue to misrepresent position information (MAP coordinates - and there is more than one coordinate system for mapping geographic location) as GPS coordinates. The Global Positioning Satellite system is a series of satellites that transmit information to receivers, that allows the receivers to determine geographic position at the receiver. That position is then translated into the chosen map coordinate system the user prefers.

I already covered that point, twice. Yet you keep coming back with arguments like this, which are simply playing with words in an attempt to shore up your argument. I'm not talking to Kyle Six-Pack about GPS coordinates, I'm talking to a person who says he has two degrees in Electrical Engineering. A man who should know that translating from one coordinate plane into another is a simple mathematical equation when you possess the right information. I've already covered how the system has the right information (via triangulation and tower coordinates), so why would you, a person with two degrees have to make such a broad and untrue statement considering you should know better if you read my posts? Why? If I wasn't clear, I could understand that, but I as I said, I expect you, another EE to take be able to accept simple concepts without me spelling them out.

Here is another one, You seem to think the reusing ID codes is OK if you can spread them over a large geographical area; unless you can guarantee that guns will always be confined to those separate areas, the system fails when two or more guns with the same ID show up in the same geographic area.

That statement is not necessarily true. It certainly *could* be true, but only if the person who writes the software is an amateur. You don't list a single condition for the failure, despite having the credentials to do so. As I said, you should know what I'm referring to based on your education, and it looks like you sort of did. However, it is easy to imagine a dynamic system the holds reserve tags in case a new tag shows up in the area. Perhaps a system that keeps a log of tags and can identify established v. new visiting tags. What about a system that hands out dynamic tags only for that region based on a ID/key algorithm based on time stamps for that region? Notice that I, once again, I offer distinct and simple software solution to a completely vague statement that you made.

Had you said, "Well have you considered that you would lose the ability to track specific firearm unless you implemented some sort of software scheme to handle duplicate tags? I don't believe that it would be possible to distinguish between a tag that has been resident for 30 days and a tag that just showed up without storing too much information. Just off the cuff, if you had to keep a record for 1 year on each tag, that could amount to megabytes of storage for each tag. If you did the math on cell towers and, let's say you had X tags per mile, you might end up with Y gigs of storage per tower and now we have to archive that data. It could be costly to implement such a solution unless a dedicate system of XYZ was implemented." I would be a little more inclined to believe that you were thinking about this objectively.

My perception of his comments is that he has stooped to personal attacks against my character and my intelligence.

As I said above, my style of discussion is what it is. I speak no differently in a design review to my peers and expect no less of them. An engineer should be embarrassed if he/she speaks about something they know nothing of and are incorrect or cannot back their statements with solid examples. My questioning of your credibility may offend you, but when I discuss an engineering issue with someone who has two degrees, I expect some serious discussion and rebuttal. If you put forth arguments with technical substance, then it wouldn't seem like your credibility was under attack. I am rebutting your points and showing why they are flawed from an engineering standpoint. It has nothing to do with you personally, but it has everything to do with your engineering capabilities.

If someone who was a physicist told me that they could increase the pressure of a gas without affecting V, n, R, or T in an ideal case, I would call them a bad physicist. It has nothing to do with them personally, it is just that as a physicist, they are dead wrong by saying something like that.

We don't need to stoop to the level of 'Kill the Messenger' if we disagree on the message being conveyed. Disparaging the messenger is a technique we see constantly when the merits of an argument are going against the one resorting to denigrating his opposition.

I am more than willing to discuss this on a technical level. In my opinion, you have yet to produce a single argument that shows why this system or LAKs, even in this incredibly macroscopic view, could not work. I wish I could say that I feel bad that you are offended, but I don't because I'm not attacking you personally. I'm simply challenging you to come up with the well founded critique that a man with two degrees in EE should be able to put forth on a subject he chose to discuss.

One of Many
January 24, 2006, 08:22 PM
I am not going to disect the last post by Deavis, with rebuttals on a paragraph basis, as I have in the past; all but two paragraphs in his post are carefully phrased personal attacks against me, and even the two that claim some technical rebuttal against my previous statements also contain personal attacks against me.

The admittance by Deavis at the end of that second technical paragraph, that the additional system requirements required to meet my previous objection would be complex and costly, are just the point I have been emphasizing. Any system that relies on technology to meet this proposed goal will be prohibitively costly and complex, with no guarantee of success (just like we have seen with the Canadian gun registration system, and it is no where near as ambitious as this scheme).

This discourse has been of the nature of a 'Brainstorming Session' or a 'Concept Evaluation'; it certainly has not gotten anywhere close to actual design of a 'workable' system, so generalities are the proper frame of mind for this type of discussion, regardless of the demands by Deavis for detailed point by point 'proof' that his suggestions are 'impossible'. I do not believe that I stated anywhere in this lengthy discourse that it is 'impossible' to create a system that will accomplish the goal of tracking each and every firearm in existance; I have certainly stated (multiple times and ways) that it is impracticable, and certainly not feasible with the resources the public will be willing to supply in support of such a system, much less the loss of civil rights that such a system would entail.

I am not one of those engineers that worships at the altar of the god of technology, nor one of the engineer priests that think the only valid solutions to the problems of society are those derived solely from use of technology.

This thread was started by a posting concerning a politician who wants to blame social problems on inanimate, unthinking technology, and look for solutions in the same venue. That type of blame the technology, praise the technology, mental flaw is why we have so many expensive failures in the social arena today.

It is people acting inappropriately, and refusing to accept responsibility for their actions, that have caused the problems that the politicians want to blame on the technology that is misused (whether it is a gun, automobile, cell phone, internet, knife, ball bat, alcoholic beverage, illegal drugs, etc.).

Trying to solve behavioral problems by mandating expensive technology will not be effective; there will always be people that figure out a way to bypass the latest technological 'gee whiz' solution. For every rule, there will be some people that believe they are above the rule (we call these people criminals, because they deliberately and repeatedly break these rules). Technology can help society apprehend and incarcerate these people, but it will never prevent people from committing crimes. In our zeal to prevent crimes from being committed against lawful citizens, we need to take care lest we reach the point where we incarcerate the law abiding people, and turn the criminals out on the streets to work their will on anyone brave enough to venture out of their cage.

I am not going to lower myself to the level required to match wits with Deavis, and respond in like manner to the personal attacks he seems to favor. This is my last post on this thread; I have better things to do than argue with someone who has nothing worth responding to.

Deavis
January 25, 2006, 12:01 AM
The admittance by Deavis at the end of that second technical paragraph, that the additional system requirements required to meet my previous objection would be complex and costly, are just the point I have been emphasizing

Ah yes, this admittance where I threw out a hypothetical situation to give you an example of what a real technical objection looks like?

Had you said, "Well have you considered that you would lose the ability to track specific firearm unless you implemented some sort of software scheme to handle duplicate tags? I don't believe that it would be possible to distinguish between a tag that has been resident for 30 days and a tag that just showed up without storing too much information. Just off the cuff, if you had to keep a record for 1 year on each tag, that could amount to megabytes of storage for each tag. If you did the math on cell towers and, let's say you had X tags per mile, you might end up with Y gigs of storage per tower and now we have to archive that data. It could be costly to implement such a solution unless a dedicate system of XYZ was implemented." I would be a little more inclined to believe that you were thinking about this objectively.

One that I can counter with ease with numbers on the cost of storage? I think about those things before I post them. Nothing you have posted yet has shown this my implementation to be anymore costly or unacceptable when compared to other gun control methods, even though that is unecessary to do, which I pointed out multiple times.

I am not going to disect the last post by Deavis, with rebuttals on a paragraph basis, as I have in the past; all but two paragraphs in his post are carefully phrased personal attacks against me, and even the two that claim some technical rebuttal against my previous statements also contain personal attacks against me.

Like I said before, your rebuttals are not based on solid technical objections, otherwise we would be able to discuss them at length. As it is, you have yet to respond to a single rebuttal I posed to your objections. You are objecting with unbackable claims of extreme expense with no concrete examples, a so-called "impracticality" based on your view of the circumstances a gun owner should face, and personal dislike of a tracking system. I have called you out on those points all along and continued to point out that your responses are, in my opinion, not technically very deep for a person who says he holds two degrees in engineering.

Feel free to ignore me, that is what the ignore button is for but just so you know, this is a personal attack:
You are an idiot and stupid.
This is an attack on your idea:
Your point that global warming is occuring is based on shoddy information pushed by impartial groups and here is my proof...
This is an attack on your claimed credibility:
As an tax advisor you should know that you cannot deduct interest payments on a credit card like you can for mortgage interest. That is a mistake and you should know better based on your training.

The last two are fair, the first is not. I believe I have stuck to the last two very carefully but if you don't take it up with the moderators.

Guy B. Meredith
January 25, 2006, 01:50 AM
Car Knocker has it. Forget about whether the BGs will replace batteries, forget whether it is simple to engineer. Any BG with brains will put a nail through the devide post haste. May be simple to engineer, is simpler to eliminate. :scrutiny:

Really, really stupid to think a criminal is going to go along with a law requiring a GPS. :mad:

LAK
January 27, 2006, 05:06 AM
One of Many,

How big, and "fragile", are automatic tollway EZ tags?

What is the pickup range of a tollway EZ tag RFID station?

What are the "health risks" associated with exposure to the RFID stations that read EZ tags?

Tick, tock,
Tick tock ...
------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

LAK
February 27, 2006, 06:14 AM
And speak of the devils .......

http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=2147&blz=1

U.S. HOMELAND SECURITY RFI HEIGHTENS PUBLIC CONCERNS OVER RFID, notes CASPIAN

2006-02-23 | DHS Wants to Track Spychips in Moving Cars Going 55 MPH

"Call it Big Brother on steroids," say privacy advocates Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre, co-authors of "Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID." The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is looking for beefed up RFID technology that can read government-issued documents from up to 25 feet away, pinpoint pedestrians on street corners, and glean the identity of people whizzing by in cars at 55 miles per hour.

Radio Frequency IDentification (RFID) is a controversial technology that uses tiny microchips to track items from a distance. These RFID microchips have earned the nickname "spychips" because each contains a unique identification number, like a Social Security number for things, that can be read silently and invisibly by radio waves. Privacy and civil liberties advocates are opposed to the use of the technology on consumer items and government documents because it can be used to track people without their knowledge or consent.

Albrecht and McIntyre have uncovered a Request for Information (RFI) issued by the Department of Homeland Security that underscores these privacy and civil liberties concerns. DHS seeks "superior remote data capture" that "offers significant improvements in performance" over the RFID technology currently being trialed in its U.S. Visit program border security initiatives. The RFI indicates this more potent tracking technology might be used in other initiatives and by other federal agencies.

"While the RFI is directed at border security, we're very concerned the government will use this tracking technology in our driver's licenses," said McIntyre, who is already opposed to the implications of the Real ID Act that passed last spring. That Act gives DHS the power to set uniform national driver's license standards. "Already the Real ID Act creates a de facto national ID since all Americans need a driver's license to participate in modern society," she observed. "Imagine having a remotely readable national ID that can be scanned by the government as you drive by or walk down the street."

A copy of the RFI is posted at authors' website:
http://www.spychips.com/DHS-RFID.pdf

DHS is seeking RFID devices that "can be sensed remotely, passively, and automatically....The device must be readable under all kinds of indoor and outdoor conditions... and while carried by pedestrians or vehicle occupant."
DHS has set "several high-level goals" for the reading of RFID "tokens" carried by travellers, including:

- The solution must...identify the exact location of the read such as a specific pedestrian or vehicle lane in which the token is read.

- The solution presented must sense the remote data capture technology carried by a pedestrian traveller at distances up to 25 ft.

- The solution presented must sense all tokens carried by travelers seated in a single automobile, truck, or bus at a distance up to 25 ft. while moving at speeds up to 55 mph.

- For bus traffic, the solution must sense up to 55 tokens.

- For a successful read, the traveller should not have to hold or present the token in any special way to enable the reading of the token's information. The goal is for the reader to sense a token carried on a traveler's person or anywhere in a vehicle.

ABOUT THE BOOKS

"Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track your Every Move with RFID" (Nelson Current) was released in October 2005. Already in its fifth printing, "Spychips" is the winner of the Lysander Spooner Award for Advancing the Literature of Liberty and has received wide critical acclaim. Authored by Harvard doctoral researcher Katherine Albrecht and former bank examiner Liz McIntyre, the book is meticulously researched, drawing on patent documents, corporate source materials, conference proceedings, and firsthand interviews to paint a convincing -- and frightening -- picture of the threat posed by RFID.

Despite its hundreds of footnotes and academic-level accuracy, the book remains lively and readable according to critics, who have called it a "techno-thriller" and "a masterpiece of technocriticism."
Read the foreword by Wired technology commentator and best-selling author Bruce Sterling.

"The Spychips Threat: Why Christians Should Resist RFID and Electronic Surveillance" (Nelson Current, January 31, 2006) is a paperback version of the original book that addresses Christian concerns associated with the technology.

CASPIAN Consumer Privacy
http://www.spychips.com // http://www.nocards.org

Please also see:

'Big Brother' Watching E-mail, Computer Data: US Report
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0223-03.htm

[END]
----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

If you enjoyed reading about "Boston: GPS on handguns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!