
Silicon Valley startup unveils Internet-connected smart guns for cops - adamnemecek
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/silicon-valley-startup-unveils-internet-connected-smart-guns-for-cops/
======
hga
On their old, hopeless business model:

" _But gun rights advocates, like the National Rifle Association, say smart
guns could limit Second Amendment rights._ "

As in, introduction of "smart guns" will limit or eliminate sales of normal
guns in New Jersey, and it's been seriously proposed in California last year,
and has in the past elsewhere.

Needless to say, the police are _always_ exempted from the laws.

Needless to say, gun owners (forget about the NRA, at most it's the people
they inform) will boycott _anyone_ touching this technology. As we've seen in
the latest iteration with a German company.

What also should not need saying is that the founders of this company are not
in touch with the gun market. Not a good sign, but maybe they'll learn. But it
doesn't help them to lie about "being _the_ leader in firearms safety
technologies for law enforcement".

No, that would be the holster manufacturers that make ones that make it hard
for an assailant to grab a gun, which is one of the greatest threats a
uniformed police officer faces.

I skimmed some of the article's comments, and someone mentioned that in a hot
area an officer friend of his frequently had to pull his service pistol as a
threat. I suspect that like civilians, police threaten with their guns a _lot_
more than they fire them. Having to explain why each time you pulled your gun
... they're not going to like that.

Or let me put it this way: will putting our police in a high tech Panopticon
solve the real problems with them? Will it do more than adjust them a little
at the margin? _Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?_ As in, who will be passing
judgement on the data these guns will be producing? How often does the law
enforcement-judicial complex really police itself?

------
anonbanker
This should also provide defense lawyers with adequate evidence for motions to
dismiss due to excessive force used.

Frankly, I'm as happy about this as I am about cameras on police officers. it
should dramatically lower abuse of authority.

~~~
coralreef
_This should also provide defense lawyers with adequate evidence for motions
to dismiss due to excessive force used._

What does this mean?

~~~
anonbanker
Every time a gun is fired, paperwork must be filed. When cops want to hide
that they fired shots, likely due to using excessive force in their duties,
they don't do the paperwork.

This gun now makes an electronic record of every use. No paperwork to support
the shot fired? Defense attorneys could subpoena those records as evidence of
police misconduct.

~~~
coralreef
Does that happen actually happen though? I imagine the punishment for not
disclosing that you fired your weapon is probably worse than actually firing
it.

~~~
anonbanker
I bet it would be, if could be proven to be more than negligence in paperwork.
Sadly, that's harder to prove than one would expect. This device will lower
the bar considerably, in that regard.

------
kxo
Ah yes, just what I want to trust my life to: potentially failing technology.

~~~
hga
Naw, this is purely a reporting system. If if fails, if somehow, the officer
doesn't keep the battery charged, if the data _somehow_ can't be read after a
bad shoot, the primary function of the firearm will not be affected.

------
gima
In the tommorrow's news: Government introduces the Sibyl system.

