NRA pushes "smart" gun safe
- Thread starter Ewok
- Start date
- Status
mtnbkr
Member
I've done some work with biometric identification for network/system security apps. It works well enough for a non-critical (unlike your life!) application, but it fails just enough for me to NOT put it on a gunsafe or gunlock.
As for the "cutting your thumb off" argument, decent scanners check for pulse and/or body heat.
Chris
As for the "cutting your thumb off" argument, decent scanners check for pulse and/or body heat.
Chris
goalie
Member
Well, I guess I will weigh in. I work at a hospital that recently went to biometric fingerprint scanners on the Pyxis machines where all of the medications are stored in an effort to eliminate stolen passwords turning into stolen narcotics. It works decent enough for a non-critical ID method, but some machines have had a failure rate of almost 40 percent on the first try, and none of the machines are over 86% reliable on the first try according to our pharmacy who does the tracking of who logs in, and we do have the "good" technology, not the cheaper, less reliable ID scanners that you would be putting on a safe. If I am unable to log into the Pyxis machines that cost over a million dollars each on the first try with fingerprint ID technology, then there is no way I am going to buy a 500 dollar safe for my handgun and trust it to work quickly and reliably when someone is breaking through my door. No way, no how. I will stick to my little puch-button mechanical handgun box.
JohnBT
Member
"...it's image that matters, not substance."
Now there's a soundbite for you.
But back to the safe. I don't see the NRA 'pushing' anything. Taking a kickback from sales maybe, but not pushing. And I see a great deal a difference between a gizmo safe sitting in a closet(or wherever) and a gizmo gun subjected to recoil and the elements.
Maybe we should stop advocating the use of safety glasses and hearing protection - it draws attention to fact that guns are dangerous.
John
Now there's a soundbite for you.
But back to the safe. I don't see the NRA 'pushing' anything. Taking a kickback from sales maybe, but not pushing. And I see a great deal a difference between a gizmo safe sitting in a closet(or wherever) and a gizmo gun subjected to recoil and the elements.
Maybe we should stop advocating the use of safety glasses and hearing protection - it draws attention to fact that guns are dangerous.
John
Ewok
Member
OK, they don't push it. They just offer, endorse, promote, and publicize it.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I actually have some professional experience with biometric readers - including palm prints, retinal scan, and fingerprint readers. I will qualify this by saying that my experience is limited to a few items of each type as most of the market cannot afford the high-quality devices and doesn't trust the lower-end offerings (usually with good reason)
I've only used two types of fingerprint readers costing less than $2,000 wholesale. These two readers were the only products deemed worthy of even investigating further by our engineering team.
Here are some issues I've seen recently with those two products:
1) Breathing on reader activates scanner (temperature) and causes it to read latent fingerprint of last person granted access. Reader grants access to whoever breathed on it.
2) Minor static electricity build up on person discharges into sensitive chip of fingerprint reader. Reader is now broken and access for everyone is disabled.
3) No reader that provided acceptable performance in denying unauthorized access lasted more than a week in routine use.
4) To date, we have had to return every single fingerprint reader (at any price) we have purchased and several replacement readers as well. We no longer use such product unless the customer demands it.
Biometrics does have a place in controlling access to certain areas; but reliable biometric technology is not cheap. There are a lot more hurdles to its use than many people anticipate (including the people manufacturing it).
I am particularly skeptical of this offering because it has been my experience that even offering a reliable reader at that retail price would be a considerable challenge. Further the warnings in their manual (Do not store a loaded gun in Bio-Vault?) concerning temperature sensitivity and power issues (The limited warranty does not cover probles that result from static electric discharge) make me think it suffers from many common issues with biometric readers I am familiar with.
Finally, there is the "common sense" test - why are you spending $600 on whiz-bang technology to secure a 12ga steel box that any idiot with $50 worth of tools can open in 30 seconds?
I've only used two types of fingerprint readers costing less than $2,000 wholesale. These two readers were the only products deemed worthy of even investigating further by our engineering team.
Here are some issues I've seen recently with those two products:
1) Breathing on reader activates scanner (temperature) and causes it to read latent fingerprint of last person granted access. Reader grants access to whoever breathed on it.
2) Minor static electricity build up on person discharges into sensitive chip of fingerprint reader. Reader is now broken and access for everyone is disabled.
3) No reader that provided acceptable performance in denying unauthorized access lasted more than a week in routine use.
4) To date, we have had to return every single fingerprint reader (at any price) we have purchased and several replacement readers as well. We no longer use such product unless the customer demands it.
Biometrics does have a place in controlling access to certain areas; but reliable biometric technology is not cheap. There are a lot more hurdles to its use than many people anticipate (including the people manufacturing it).
I am particularly skeptical of this offering because it has been my experience that even offering a reliable reader at that retail price would be a considerable challenge. Further the warnings in their manual (Do not store a loaded gun in Bio-Vault?) concerning temperature sensitivity and power issues (The limited warranty does not cover probles that result from static electric discharge) make me think it suffers from many common issues with biometric readers I am familiar with.
Finally, there is the "common sense" test - why are you spending $600 on whiz-bang technology to secure a 12ga steel box that any idiot with $50 worth of tools can open in 30 seconds?
revlar
Member
My $70 combination/key (uses both a number combination dial and a security key to open) floor safe works just fine thank you very much. When I'm home (and not already carrying) I keep the combination unlocked and the key on me at all times. Low cost, high security, immediate access and no batteries.
As for NRA endorsements - I take ANYbody's endorsement of anyTHING with a grain of salt.
As for NRA endorsements - I take ANYbody's endorsement of anyTHING with a grain of salt.
Mike Irwin
Member
""...it's image that matters, not substance."
Now there's a soundbite for you."
Especially when, as you have done, John, break the contextual reference. That's a trick that the anti-gunners like to use, and have used it very effectively.
"Maybe we should stop advocating the use of safety glasses and hearing protection - it draws attention to fact that guns are dangerous."
Hum...
Nice non-sequitor.
Given that NRA is the ONLY organization that teaches gun safety on a national level, and has done so for more than 50 years, and even states that in untrained hands a gun can be dangerous (as can any other device), the emphasis on safety aids is not only reasonable, it's logical, and is well within keeping with a consistent message that NRA has delivered for decades.
Promoting a biometric safe on its website WHILE questioning the efficacy of such devices when attached to firearms?
Where's the consistency in THAT, John?
Now there's a soundbite for you."
Especially when, as you have done, John, break the contextual reference. That's a trick that the anti-gunners like to use, and have used it very effectively.
"Maybe we should stop advocating the use of safety glasses and hearing protection - it draws attention to fact that guns are dangerous."
Hum...
Nice non-sequitor.
Given that NRA is the ONLY organization that teaches gun safety on a national level, and has done so for more than 50 years, and even states that in untrained hands a gun can be dangerous (as can any other device), the emphasis on safety aids is not only reasonable, it's logical, and is well within keeping with a consistent message that NRA has delivered for decades.
Promoting a biometric safe on its website WHILE questioning the efficacy of such devices when attached to firearms?
Where's the consistency in THAT, John?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked