Track Guns with GPS?

[billvon 2,384]

>No Kallend you are not always right. Not in this case.

I design em, dude.

[craddock 0]

And I think he is pretty sure he knows John and I are two different people but that did not stop his insult.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[craddock 0]

Then you should sure as well know how to disable it.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[billvon 2,384]

>Then you should sure as well know how to disable it.

Sure, take the battery out. If we ever track guns the same way, just take the slide off, or remove the barrel. Problem solved.

[craddock 0]

Quote

Sure, take the battery out. If we ever track guns the same way, just take the slide off, or remove the barrel. Problem solved.

How does this solve the problem?

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[billvon 2,384]

>How does this solve the problem?

You said that tracking of cellphones was not an issue for you because you could remove the battery. Similarly, if the tracking device is contained in the weapon's barrel, simply remove the barrel and the tracking device can no longer determine where you are - and your privacy issue goes away. Problem solved.

[billvon 2,384]

>And come on, Bill, you think you could rent a car for even one day
> and not do 32 in a 30, or 60 in a 55? That's ridiculous. I don't
> believe you for a second.

I can drive on miltary bases (where they take speed limits VERY seriously) and not break the speed limit. I can fly aircraft that have redline speeds (even different ones for different configurations!) and never exceed them. I don't much care if you believe me or not, but people stick to limits every day without much effort. And if I wanted to rent a car for really cheap, and the deal was I couldn't speed - I might just take them up on it.

[craddock 0]

Quote

You said that tracking of cellphones was not an issue for you because you could remove the battery. Similarly, if the tracking device is contained in the weapon's barrel, simply remove the barrel and the tracking device can no longer determine where you are - and your privacy issue goes away. Problem solved.

You do realize how stupid you are being? I can sit in the woods on my stand with my phone and battery and have it operating in under a minute. I always have both pieces with me. Are you actually comparing this to leaving my barrel seperate from the rest of the firearm? I am not sure how this would help me? Now I can not use the firearm yet the gps is still transmitting which is ultimately what I was trying to avoid? The ideal is to eliminate the ability to track, not hide one's location.

You have solved no problems- only created more.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[billvon 2,384]

>I can sit in the woods on my stand with my phone and battery
>and have it operating in under a minute.

And have it tracking you, yes.

>Are you actually comparing this to leaving my barrel seperate from
>the rest of the firearm? I am not sure how this would help me?

It would prevent you from being tracked.

>You have solved no problems- only created more.

I'm not trying to solve any problems here. Cellphones can track you, cars can track you, heck, an RFID tag you accidentally leave on your shirt can track you. What protects your privacy is not the lack of tracking devices that you carry, it is the fourth amendment. That's what you should be worried about if you are worried about people tracking you.

[christoofar 0]

Quote

>As I said earlier my cell phone is not powered usually during the
>weekends or even on many evenings.

Yes it is; the display is just dark and it's in a low power mode. It can remain on (and able to track you) without you knowing it.

>Whats funny is that people got all uptight about the invasion
>of privacy over Bush's authorized "spying" . . .

What people are upset about is the violation of the Fourth Amendment. If he had been doing authorized spying (i.e. with a warrant) no one would have made a peep.

And yes, if they ever do put tracking devices in guns, I will be the first to object to using that device to track someone without a warrant.

I think GPS is the wrong technology, since you would have to have some technology in the gun to transmit the coordinates (over what, cell frequencies? seems like a lot of useless chatter).

A better technology here would be high-power RFID. The tag is encrypted with the same serial number that is on the gun, so if the serial number is ever scratched off it can still be identified, plus it would make it a LOT easier during a legal search and seizure to find the gun in a sweep as the RFID tag doesn't need power and only "wakes up" when the local transmitting antenna is nearby.

A police cruiser could easily be fitted with software on their CDPD or Cell-capable laptops they ALREADY have in their cars to verify that weapons in transit are properly registered to their owners and would make recovery of stolen weapons easier. Guns that are smuggled would be easier to locate.

It's important to use high-power RFID and not low-power tags since it's easy to "snuff out" the tag. Gun manufacturers already have several places in the stock and handle to embed the tag that can thrart most gun modification.

____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>As I said earlier my cell phone is not powered usually during the
>weekends or even on many evenings.

Yes it is; the display is just dark and it's in a low power mode. It can remain on (and able to track you) without you knowing it.

You're saying the GPS or triangulation method can track a phone even when it is powered off? That's it's actually necessary to remove the battery (or place in a suitable shielded container) to remove it from view?

Seems a bit dangerous to have it transmitting even when the user thinks it's off.

[billvon 2,384]

>You're saying the GPS or triangulation method can track a phone even
>when it is powered off?

Not exactly. What actually happens is that the phone _appears_ to power off but goes into a very low power sleep mode; this is currently done for E911 compliance in some phones so they can keep track of where they are. A very minor change to the SW puts the phone into a very low rate slotted paging mode which allows tracking for a long time without significant battery usage.

Modern cellphones don't really have an 'off' button. They have a button that the processor reads, and can then decide to remove its own power or go into a low power mode.

>Seems a bit dangerous to have it transmitting even when the user thinks it's off.

Modern phones transmit registration information even when they're not in a call, and some do a power-down registration. Which means that if you turn off a phone and stick it in your pocket in a fringe area it's going to go to full power for a pretty long time (5-30 seconds) trying to register (actually trying to deregister.)

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

Yes it is; the display is just dark and it's in a low power mode. It can remain on (and able to track you) without you knowing it.

No Kallend you are not always right. Not in this case.

Irony score 10.00

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,384]

>A better technology here would be high-power RFID.

Yep. A passive UWB system powered by a lower frequency exciter signal, or something like that.

[craddock 0]

Quote

Irony score 10.00

While I will admit I should have spared the childish insult in retaliation, I can not be held responsible for those who can't comprehend.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I'll just be removing the GPS chips from my guns, and planting them on some stranger's property, unbeknownest to him.

Then you will no longer be a "law abiding gun owner".

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

If you dont use them for anything dodgy. Whats the problem?

Many thousands of people in New York City, England, and Australia were not using their guns for anything "dodgy" when laws were passed that said, "You must turn your guns in for destruction or we will imprison you."

So yeah, it's exactly true that we could be doing nothing "dodgy" with our guns, and this technology could be used to round 'em all up when the government feels that it wants to do so.

Of course, they'd probably be in for a fight. (Hopefully.)

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>As I said earlier my cell phone is not powered usually during the
>weekends or even on many evenings.

Yes it is; the display is just dark and it's in a low power mode. It can remain on (and able to track you) without you knowing it.

Holy shit, Bill -- that's even MORE insidious! And you have no problem with that?!

Is there a big notice in the phone's user's manual that says, "BE ADVISED: EVEN WHEN YOU THINK YOU HAVE TURNED OFF THIS PHONE, IT CAN AND DOES FUNCTION AS A GOVERNMENT-TRACKING DEVICE TO KEEP TABS ON YOUR LOCATION AT ALL TIMES YOU ARE CARRYING IT"?

That's seriously fucked up, Bill.

Quote

And yes, if they ever do put tracking devices in guns, I will be the first to object to using that device to track someone without a warrant.

Then your reason for not objecting at this point, and for thinking this is a good, functional idea, is...?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>How does this solve the problem?

You said that tracking of cellphones was not an issue for you because you could remove the battery. Similarly, if the tracking device is contained in the weapon's barrel, simply remove the barrel and the tracking device can no longer determine where you are - and your privacy issue goes away. Problem solved.

Bill, a cellular phone carried with the battery off, or removed, is not much of a problem for the user. It might take a while longer to get it ready for making a call (and incoming calls would be unreceivable), but the utility of the phone is still there.

If the gun had a tracking device in the barrel or slide, as you suggested, one would not be able to stop the tracking ability of the device by simply carrying the barrel or slide around with him -- to say nothing of the fact that doing so would render the gun useless for self defense as most criminal attackers will not politely wait while you assemble your gun. And one cannot leave the barrel or slide behind at home and expect the gun to be of any use to him whatsoever.

So how on earth do you say, "Problem solved" in any kind of meaningful, non-disingenuous way?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>And come on, Bill, you think you could rent a car for even one day
> and not do 32 in a 30, or 60 in a 55? That's ridiculous. I don't
> believe you for a second.

I can drive on miltary bases (where they take speed limits VERY seriously) and not break the speed limit. I can fly aircraft that have redline speeds (even different ones for different configurations!) and never exceed them. I don't much care if you believe me or not, but people stick to limits every day without much effort. And if I wanted to rent a car for really cheap, and the deal was I couldn't speed - I might just take them up on it.

What the hell does flying a plane under VNE have to do with driving a car on public roadways?

And why put an arbitrary limitation on the example, such as driving on a military base? Is that the only place you would happen to ever drive?

Why are you being obfuscatory and disingenuous like this?

We both know -- hell, we all know -- that you simply are lying if you tell us you always drive at or below the speed limit no matter where you drive; or that it's no problem for you to do so and you'd be able to always remain within the limit.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

What protects your privacy is not the lack of tracking devices that you carry, it is the fourth amendment. That's what you should be worried about if you are worried about people tracking you.

What protects the public from being murdered with guns is not the lack of guns that we carry, but the statutes that make it illegal to murder people.


If you feel that it's better to have a paper law between you and someone committing a crime against you, rather than causing them to lack the means to commit that crime against you, then I guess you agree with that statement and don't see any need for any gun-carry restriction in any place on earth.

After all, the only thing the Secret Service would need to do to make sure that no assassin kills the president would be to make sure that the laws against murder and assassination stay on the books.

Me, I'd rather they simply not even have the ability to ever track me by my phone, rather than the government's meaningless and bullshit "promise" to never use it wrongly against me and my rights.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[christoofar 0]

Quote

Quote

If you dont use them for anything dodgy. Whats the problem?

Many thousands of people in New York City, England, and Australia were not using their guns for anything "dodgy" when laws were passed that said, "You must turn your guns in for destruction or we will imprison you."

So yeah, it's exactly true that we could be doing nothing "dodgy" with our guns, and this technology could be used to round 'em all up when the government feels that it wants to do so.

Of course, they'd probably be in for a fight. (Hopefully.)

-

You can own a gun in New York City. You just can't bring them INTO the City. Which basically restricts you to buying them when you are there.

There are sport shooting clubs in NYC, 3 in Manhattan alone. The most popular one is right in the middle of the gay mecca in Chelsea.

Likewise, in Philadelphia you don't even have to bother with registering with the City as long its registered with SOMEBODY. Pennsylvania has the least restrictive gun laws and the most friendly to the NRA. I live in Center City and have a rifle. If I want to take it somewhere, I just have to put it in its case, call a taxi and take it over to my garage.

Oh yes. Pennsylvania is, technically, a BLUE state. However there's a lot of red and blue people sleeping around to iron things out. We also got more NRA members per capita than all you people down South.

____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.

[billvon 2,384]

>Holy shit, Bill -- that's even MORE insidious! And you have no problem with that?!

That it CAN be done? Nope. I do have a big problem with it if it IS done without a warrant.

>Is there a big notice in the phone's user's manual that says, "BE
>ADVISED: EVEN WHEN YOU THINK YOU HAVE TURNED OFF THIS PHONE,
>IT CAN AND DOES FUNCTION AS A GOVERNMENT-TRACKING DEVICE TO
>KEEP TABS ON YOUR LOCATION AT ALL TIMES YOU ARE CARRYING IT"?

Nope. Is there a big notice on all laptop computers that say the same thing? How about cars, or aircraft? Aircraft actually have a transmitter that will pinpoint you down to a few hundred yards!

>If you feel that it's better to have a paper law between you and someone
>committing a crime against you, rather than causing them to lack the
>means to commit that crime against you, then I guess you agree with that
>statement and don't see any need for any gun-carry restriction in any
>place on earth.

Correct, sorta. I think every sane law-abiding adult in the US should have the right to carry a gun. However, that right does not extend to airports, schools, courthouses or other sensitive areas. I would not be opposed to metal detectors, RFID readers or other devices that help ensure that.

>Me, I'd rather they simply not even have the ability to ever track me by
>my phone . . .

So don't carry a phone.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

I'll just be removing the GPS chips from my guns, and planting them on some stranger's property, unbeknownest to him.

Then you will no longer be a "law abiding gun owner".

Yep, and if they outlawed your religion and you still worshiped at your church, you would no longer be a "law abiding religious person."

If they made growing and eating spinach illegal for some frivolous reason, and you continued to grow it in your garden and eat spinach salads, you would no longer be a "law abiding gardener."

Just because they can make an arbitrary, stupid, and useless law that criminalizes what was formerly perfectly legal does not mean we would suddenly become bad people with the stroke of a president's pen. You'd have to distinguish between refusal to obey a good law and refusal to obey a bad law. Technically, any currently-legal thing you do could be made illegal, so suddenly you would be a "criminal"? That's a bullshit way to delineate a person as a criminal.

-

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I think GPS is the wrong technology, since you would have to have some technology in the gun to transmit the coordinates (over what, cell frequencies? seems like a lot of useless chatter).

Good point. There are an estimated 250 million guns in America. That's going to take one heck of a computer system to keep track of all those data points simultaneously, and continuously. Heck, the Canadians have spent $2 billion on their gun registration system, still can't get it right, and it has done nothing to deter crime.

Quote

A police cruiser could easily be fitted with software on their CDPD or Cell-capable laptops they ALREADY have in their cars to verify that weapons in transit are properly registered to their owners and would make recovery of stolen weapons easier.

Ah, but therein lies a problem. In order to know who the legal owner of the gun is, you need to have gun registration (see my comment about Canada, above). And you need to mandate that every gun sale must go through the government to officially change the ownership, like an automobile title. And that's not going to happen.

Quote

Gun manufacturers already have several places in the stock and handle to embed the tag that can thrart most gun modification.

Stocks are easily replaced. A revolver has some spare room in the grip, but a pistol has a magazine fitted in there. And would it stand up to the beating of repeated recoil, along with oil, solvent, dust and soot?