SANDIA REPORT SAND96-1131 Unlimited Release Printed May 1996 Smart Gun Technology SF29ClCIQ(&Fjl 1 Project Final Report Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation. NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, any agency thereof or any of their contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government,any agency thereof or any of their contractors. Printed in the United States of America. This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from Office of Scientific and Technical Information PO BOX 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Prices available from (615) 576-8401, FTS 626-8401 Available to the public from National Technical Information Service US Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Rd Springfield, VA 22161 NTIS price codes Printed copy A08 Microfiche copy AO1 i, Smart Gun Technology Final Report . February 1996 This work was performed by Sandia National Laboratories for the National Institute of Justice under contract IAA-94-IJ-R-021 . Project ii This page intentionally left blank. SAND96-1131 Unhnited Release Printed May 1996 Smart Gun Technology Project Final Report D. R. Weiss Power Electronics and Custom Sandia National Albuquerque, Controllers Department Laboratories New Mexico 87185-0537 Abstract The goal of the Smart Gun Technology unauthorized recognizing-and-authorizing the National Department objectives. project is to eliminate the capability user from firing a law enforcement (or “smart”) officer’s surety technologies. This project Institute of Justice which is the research and development of Justice. law enforcement officers will value. Second, that meet the requirements to demonstrate and document the requirements was funded by to investigate, evaluate, technology’s officer’s U.S. three primary for a smart firearm technology for a law enforcement the most promising user- agency for the This report lists the findings and results of the project’s First, to find and document technologies of an firearm by implementing that and prioritize smart firearm. usefulness in models Third, of a smart firearm. ... 111 . Acknowledgments Thanks go out to all of people who supplied the information to make this report possible. report consists of the aggregate ideas of many people who work in, and are knowledgeable the law enforcement profession, firearms, and various technologies. This about, Special thanks go to team members Dale Brandt (the lead electrical engineer, and designer of the demonstration models), Kerry Tweet (the lead mechanical engineer, who also drafted Chapter 11 and Appendix A), and Debbie Spencer (Criminal Justice Coordinator). Without their efforts this project would not have been possible. iv Reader Feedback ~isrepoti istiefinal documentation forthe Smti Gun TechnoloW Project. Eventhough this is the final report for this project there is still much work to do before a smart gun system can be fielded for use. We are constantly looking for ways to improve the information and the processes documented in this report. Readers can provide the best suggestions for improvement. The reader is encouraged to submit any comments, criticisms, and ideas to be considered for fhture research to the following address. Douglas Weiss Smart Gun Technology Project Sandia National Laboratories P.O. BOX 5800 Albuquerque, NM Fax: 505-845-9888 E-mail: drweiss@sandia.gov 87185-0537 v ● Contents ● ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................ IV READER FEEDBACK ..................................................................................................................................... v CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................... ...VI TABLE OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................0.........VIII PREFACE ......................................................................................................................................................... IX EXECUTIVE SECTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 10 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1 THE SMART GUN TECHNOLOGY CHAPTER 2 FIREARM TAKEAWAYS PROJECT ............................................................... 11 .................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 3 A SMART GUN SYSTEM ..................................................................................................... 23 SECTION 2 THE REQUIREMENTS CHAPTER 4 REQUIREMENT FOR A SMART GUN TECHNOLOGY ............27 GATHERING PROCESS ....................................................................... 28 CHAPTER 5 OFFICERS CONCERNS ....................................................................................................... 33 SECTION 3 THE EVALUATION CHAPTER 6 THE EVALUATION OF SMART ....................... 62 PROCESS .......................................................................................... 63 CHAPTER 7 ENGINEERING WQU~~NTS CHAPTER 8 AUTOMATIC GUN TECHNOLOGIES .................................................................................... 65 ID TECHNOLOGIES .................................................................................. 81 WIOFWQUENCY IDENTIFICATION ................................................................................................................8l REMOTECONTROL........................................................................................................................................... 85 B~CODES ......................................................................................................................................................86 TOUCHMEMORY.............................................................................................................................................. 88 CHAPTER 9 BIOMETRICS TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................................................... 90 FNGEW~T .................................................................................................................................................... 93 VOICEWCOGNITION ........................................................................................................................................95 HANDSHAPE.................................................................................................................................................... 97 SIGNATUMD~MICS ....................................................................................................................................99 BIOMETMCS ABOVETWNECK .......................................................................................................................99 , vi CHAPTER 10 MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGIES .......................................................................... 101 WGNETIC ENCODWG....................................................................................................................................lOl LOCKS............................................................................................................................................................lO2 LMM .......................................................................................................................................................lO3 CAPACITIVE SENSING .....................................................................................................................................lo4 .............................................................................................................................................lo4 COLORSENSORS CHAPTER 11 LATCHING MECHANISMS ............................................................................................ 106 CHAPTER 12 TECHNOLOGY SECTION 4 SMART EVALUATIONS ................................................................................... 110 GUN TECHNOLOGY CHAPTER 13 DEVELOPMENT DEMONSTRATION OF DEMONSTRATION CHAPTER 14 REVIEWS OF DEMONSTRATION SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS ............119 MODELS .................................................. 120 MODELS .............................................................. 123 ............................................................................................................ 127 CHAPTER 15 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDICES MODELS ........................................................... 128 . ............................................................................................................................................ 131 APPENDIX A OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS ............................................................................... 132 APPENDIX B SMART GUN TECHNOLOGIES QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................... 136 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS FOR A SMART GUN TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 139 APPENDIX D PATENTS ............................................................................................................................ 144 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 155 vii Table of Figures FIGURE1. FIGURE2. FIGURE3 FIGURE4. FIGURE5. FIGURE6. FIGURE7. FIGURE8. FIGURE9. FIGURE10. FIGURE11. FIGURE12. FIGURE13 FIGURE14. FIGURE15. FIGURE16. FIGURE17. FIGURE18. FIGURE19. FIGURE20. FIGURE21. FIGURE22. FIGURE23. FIGURE24. FIGURE25. FIGURE26. FIGURE27. FIGURE28. FIGURE29. FIGURE30. FIGURE31, FIGURE32 FIGURE33 FIGURE34 FIGUREA-1. FIGUREA-2. ... Vlll NUMBEROF OFFICERS IQLLEDWITHA SERVICEFIREARM.......................................................... 1 OFFICER’SCONCERNS RELATING TOSMTG~nC~OLOGIES ................................................3 EVALUATION OFTECHNOLOGIES COMPARED TOREQUIREMENTS ................................................. 6 RANKINGOFl%cHNOLOGIEs(mTHO~IMPORTNcEs) ................................................................7 TAKEAWAYATTEMPTSIN SNFWCISCO ................................................................................. 17 OFFICERS IQLLEDWITHSERVICEWEAPONS............................................................................... 18 PERCENT OFTOTALTAKEAWAYINCIDENTS (1979-1992) BYREGIONmm DMSION.................. 19 LOCATIONOFTAKEAWAYSINCIDENTS BY STATE,DMSION, ANDREG1oN.................................2O OFFICERS KILLEDN TAKEAWAYS NORMALIZED BYTHENUMBEROFOFFICERS EMPLOYED N THE DMsIoN .......................................................................................................................................2o WTIOOFOFFICERSTOOFF~DERSD~GT~AWAY INCIDENTS ..........................................2l YEARSOFSERVICEOFOFFICERS KILLEDDURINGTAKEAWAYS................................................. 22 TIMEOFTAKEAWAYINCIDENTS ..................................................................................................22 SMARTGUNSYSTEMANALOGY..................................................................................................23 DATA GAT~~G PROCESS FLOW..............................................................................................28 SURwYmSPONDE~S BYwGION .............................................................................................3O SURVEYRESPONDENTS BY TYPEOF AGENCY.............................................................................3l TITLESOFSURVEYRESPONDENTS ............................................................................................... 32 SURVEYF@sPommms YEARSOFSERVICE .................................................................................32 OFFICERS’CONCERNS RELATING TOSMARTGUNTECHNOLOGIES .............................................33 SURVEYRESPONSES TO: OTHERAUTHORIZED PEOPLE SHOULD BEABLETOUSEkm FIREARM ..... 36 SURVEYRESPONSES TO: A SMARTGUNSHOULD LOOKJUSTLIKEEXISTING FIREARMS. ...............38 SURVEYRESPONSES TO: Tm BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE USEDDURING A TAKEAWAYINCIDENT. ....42 SURVEYRESPONSES TO: I WOULDBEWILLING TOWEARSOMETHING SUCHASA RING,OR wmsTBAND.TmTTm FIMMwomD mcoGNuE . .................................................................45 SURVEYRESPONSES TO: I WOULDBEWILLING TODOSOMETHING (LIKEPress A BUTTONONhrf UNIFORM) TODISABLE THEFIREARM IFITWASTAKENFROMME.................................................46 SURVEYRESPONSES TO: ITISACCEPTABLE TOHAVEBATTERIES INFIREARMS. ...........................48 SURVEYRESPONSES TO:A SMARTGUNTECHNOLOGY SHOULD REPLACE EXISTING FIREARM smEm MEcwsMs . ..................................................................................................................5l SURVEYRESPONSES TO: SMARTGUNTECHNOLOGIES mvEvwm . ............................................52 SURVEYRESPONSES TO: A SMARTGUNTECHNOLOGY SHOULD BERETROFITABLE. ..................... 54 SURVEYRESPONSES TO: A SMARTGUN$ECHNOLOGY MUST OPERATE WITHEITHER HAND. ........57 SURVEYRESPONSES TO: A SMARTGUNTECHNOLOGY MUSTOPERATE WHILETHEOFFICER WEARS GLOVES........................................................................................................................................ 59 SURVEYRESPONSES TO: Is ANINDICATOR NECESSARY? ..............................................................6O EVALUATION OFTECHNOLOGIES WITHNOTES.......................................................................... 114 RANKINGOF TECHNOLOGIES (WITHOmIMPORTmCES)........................................................... 116 RANKINGS OFTECHNOLOGIES (wTHIMPORTmCES)................................................................. 116 DROPP~GSHOCKAmS ............................................................................................................. 133 OPEWTWG SHOCKAMS............................................................................................................ 133 ● The following guide is to assist those readers that have read the projects previously released preliminary reports. With the following exceptions all of the material presented in this final report is new: Chapters 1,2,4,5, and Appendices A, B, and C are from the project’s first report: Smart Gun Technology Requirements Preliminary Report. There are no significant changes to the content of these chapters. Chapters 1,3,6-12, and Appendix D are from the project’s second report: Evaluation of Smart Gun Report. There are no significant changes to the content of these chapters. Technologies Prelimina~ ● ix This page intentionally left blank. Executive Summary Issues and Findings The Smart Gun Technology Project Discussed: A research and evaluation project was completed to determine if technologies are available that could meet law enforcement officers’ requirements for a user authorized firearm. By Dougias R. Weiss Key Issues: The questions researched during this project include: What are the law enforcement officers’ requirements for a smart gun? . Do technologies already exist that can meet the officers’ requirements? . How would a smart gun operate? ● Key findings: The results of this project include: . Numerous oficers have been killed by adversaries who obtained an officer’s firearm (See Figure 1). . Officers have very idealistic requirements for a smart gun technology. . Many technologies have favorable attributes to meet a subset of the officer’s requirements, but there is not currently a perfect smart gun technology. . Demonstration models illustrated operational concepts and validated both the officers’ requirements and technology evaluations. “It will never happen to me,” and “The only officers that are killed with their own guns are those who give types of them away” comments sometimes heard enforcement are the that were from officers law when research on firearm takeaways in law enforcement began. When the records are studied it is seen that numerous officers have been killed in the line of duty with their own service firearm, as many as nineteen in a single year (See Figure 1). A smart gun technology, one that could enable a firearm only after identi@ing an authorized firearm user, is one eliminating or method of reducing the number of deaths. The Smart Project Gun was Technology funded by the NIJ requested was organized into three primary objectives: first, to find the requirements that a law enforcement officer has for a smart gun technology; second, ❑ Officers Killed By 100 20 0 rum ZCOC9 .%%ggggg~gg -r---- ---- --- Yeer Figure 1. Number Of Officers Killed With A Service Firearm 1 . the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in April 1994. The research that ●I a)o r-m mcnmmm ---- these to evaluate various existing officer’s firearm implementing user-recognizing- technologies by comparison with from requirements obtained and-authorizing, officers; technologies. third, to develop models to demonstrate how a technology might operate in a smart gun system, All of these objectives are focused project goal on meeting of eliminating the the capability of an unauthorized user from firing a law enforcement Is there a takeaway Most officers number of who the have been killed with a service weapon, either their own or their partner’s, because it was obtained by an adversary. Officers that have been through the experience often do not like to talk about it. It is said that some may not even report the incidents. “smart”, v It needs to be remembered that whenever an officer enters a situation there is a firearm present. From survey results, only a few officers offered that weapon Information Requirement was needed line on the occurrence of takeaways to prove the need for smart gun technologies to officers (see “Is There A Takeaway Problem?”). of duty are killed by an adversary with a service firearm, either their own or another they were more officer’s, interested in looking for a possible solution to the takeaway the Federal Bureau of Investiga- nel tions (FBI) continued interest in tallying the number of these deaths. officer’s firearm is taken. (While the FBI tracks officers that are killed during takeaways incidents, much less information is The FBI gathers information on officers killed in the line of duty. One of the items that is tracked is the number of ofQcers killed with number an of takeaways that do not result in a death.) Research revealed that during this time fiarne an average of 16% of the officers killed were killed with a service firearm, either the officer’s own or another officer’s, in the hands of an adversary. This totaled 182 officers killed in Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted report. A box is checked if an officer is killed with his own gun, and the tally of service firearm it is not included. circulated, such as the only time an officer is killed with his own firearm is when the firearm was surrendered to the suspect. the when The total is the officers statistics surrounding takeaways. There are also false rumors about killed FBI’s in United killed the known are published other more critical topics should The majority of be studied. seen that their own weapon. takeaways are not a problem and never show officers that takeaway incidents occur. When officers realized that an average of 16°/0 of the all the officers killed in the Gathering these boxes gives the official number of takeaways for the have Actual takeaway data was used to problem? underestimate officers or by States. If an officer is with another officer’s FBI reports from were analyzed 1979 to 1992 to extract information concerning officers killed with service weapons. Officers deaths were reviewed to include other officers, such as 178 separate incidents during the fourteen year period, Fortunately the number of these deaths has been decreasing since a peak in 1986 (as seen in Figure 1). Some possible reasons for the in deaths may be decline increased awareness of the problem, the more frequent use of security holsters, changing from Some indirect evidence that there is a takeaway problem can be partners, that were killed with a service firearm by an adversary. revolvers to semiautomatics, and the increased use of body armor seen by the amount of emphasis placed on firearm retention training training at police academies, the wide selection of security holsters available, and Since the FBI’s+ tally does not include these other deaths, their number is conservative. Deaths among officers. 2 that neither calculation includes are non-law enforcement person- Over half of the total number of takeaway incidents resulting in an officer death have occurred in the problem. The percentage be made to look worse could if the ofllcers that are killed in non- firearm related (accidental deaths) are removed incidents from the calculations. To understand the attitudes of the smart gun ofilcers toward technologies developed. a survey was The survey questions were designed to understand the Although conditions that influence officers’ possible thinking and when actions dealing with their firearms. The responses were characterized to determine the types and number of concerns of ofllcers (See “Survey The of Ofilcer’s concerns surveys in were validated other Concerns). found combined with information the and from sources such as live interviews and periodicals. The principal result of this process was a list of ofllcers’ South region as defined by the FBI. Following the South (56VO), in order, are the Midwest (19Yo), West (14VO), and Northeast concerns about smart gun technologies. Officer’s Requirements For each of the officers’ it may or may not be to meet ol%cers’ ideal, this sets a standard that can be used to implementations Figure 2 concerns rank various of technologies. shows the relating technologies officers’ to smart gun compared to the number of survey responses. primary concern expressed was that The officers the effect of To the officer the firearm is another tool that is available to be used. The difference is that the firearm is only used when the of the ofllcer’s work demand that lethal force be (10%). The reason that the South region has had more than twice a deductive approach was used to document the reasons behind used. work the takeaways their viewpoint. another person’s life is at stake. resulting in death This approach than the next closest region is not allowed known. When compared to other regions the answer is not directly smart gun technologies to be extracted from their concerns. related to population number of ofllcers. While the technologies or the idealistic Other takeaway facts: . Incidents locations, requirements enforcement occur in various mainly along a roadway atler a traffic stop. Quite a few occur while transporting prisoners, and at understood set for of smart describes “wants” of officers, that the the gun the law it is actual “needs” are a subset of the wants. These wants set a target for the optimum smart gun technology. Then the firearm must because the officer’s or The second most frequently listed concern by officers requires that the smart gun technology be able the all to operate in circumstances and environments officer could in which an conceivably find himself. II The most common motive for an attack on an officer is to escape from the oftlcerl. . The officer’s firearm must operate in the worst possible environments the officer may face. police departments. . a smart gun technology on the reliability of the firearm system. circumstances concerns the A struggle usually ensues prior to a takeaway. In only 8% of the documented incidents were the firearms taken by another means such 350 : 300 0 n. 250 ~ K 200 % 50 n as by surprise, or stolen. ● The .physical condition of the . victim officers are average or above average2. Figure 2. Officer’s Concerns Relating to Smart Gun Technologies 3 Gaining an officer’s trust in a smart gun technology is a hurdle The that must be overcome. either hand. The technology must be simple and affordable. The encompassing desire Evaluating to ot%cers have is that a smart gun users users. technology does not interfere with the manner in which current Officers want the capability to use another ofilcer’s weapon if the need arises. They also want firearms operate, except by limiting the use to an authorized individual. technology must be separate the from unauthorized able authorized to be able to use a weapon Survey of officers’ A survey was used Responses were officer’s exception gun technologies. mailed to police Surveys were departments, takeaway Law but did result in a broad sample. Analysis included of the information both the interpretation of the open ended questions, and calculation of statistics from the numerical closed ended responses. Follow-up interviews were conducted in person and by telephone until the trends of the answers were repeating. The interviews sought to check the from the greater The return from the South region (58’%o) as defined by the FBI. This is also the American of received of the regions. was region Society that percentage had of the ot%cers incidents. greatest killed in The majority of the returned surveys were from municipal, city, or police departments (63%), the next largest percentages of respondents were from county agencies (1 l%). These two types provide of agencies most law the service in the Nation. enforcement Surveys were of also received training academies, Tribal, University, agencies. A wide responded jointly Federal, and from State, unknown range of personnel to the survey, from management positions, to trainers, interpretation of the questions to validate the survey, to to patrol officers. The majority of the responses c~e from officers understand the importance of the answers, and understand any extenuating circumstances that the may have influenced answers. having 4 the as the requirements officers’ sometimes general requirements into the more definite requirements needed for across the country, with the returns generally matching the population distributed at law enforcement conferences and published in the Enforcement Trainers Journal. The method of distribution was not intended to give a scientific sampling of law enforcement, was trace evaluations. After the specific requirements were listed, characteristics smart method could determinate factor in the rankings. A process called quality functional deployment (QFD) was used to transform the the law from enforcement officers. Questions were designed to draw out about that officers’ concerns to obtain evaluation needed with information attitudes An that Technologies field duties, and over a quarter came from officers involved in training. The officers also had a wide range of experience. Over half of the officers were in the range of 11-25 years experience in law enforcement. each technology was each requirement against determine a final ranked to ranking between all Since many the technologies. of the officers’ requirements relate to the final implementation of a product, as opposed to a technology that may be included into a product, some of the requirements could not be used for ranking purposes. The ranking that was completed, therefore, focuses on the basic operational aspects of the technology in a smart gun system. Three categories were of technologies investigated: Identification, Automatic Biometrics, and Miscellaneous. Automatic identi- fication is a broad classification of technologies for devices that can be used to track items without human involvement. Generally speaking these are electronic devices that use some type of code for their unique key. Biometric technologies are those that base their uniqueness on some characteristic of the human body. These are also electronic devices that can sense the unique human property and use that information to lock or unlock a firearm. Other devices were Demonstration Model Evaluations The third objective of the smart gun technology project was to demonstrate the usefulness of promising technologies in models. Five models show the weaknesses gies. was were developed strengths of various to and technolo- The purpose of the models to illustrate showing how the a principles smart gun technology would operate, and provide a visual aid when discussing the project with law enforcement Five officers models were Touch Memory, fabricated: Remote RF Tag, Fingerprint, Recognition. I and others. Control, equipment that was modified professional characteristics. would operate. Technologies selected not similar operate. characteristics might By proper selection .— What the demonstrate non-tangible to with differen sirnila models could no to the of%cers werl items like thl technology’s cost, reliability, am adversarial strengths. Items lik{ these will remain a concern fo officers until a Ileldable prototyp is thoroughly tested. of and Speech ! features that approximate those of. a final product. Each of the models were built into an identically any were only to show how a particular implementation of a technology would operate, but also to show how a class of technologies with they held firearm user that the device was acting like a smart gun r .. that the technologies to be modeled the comments that ofllcers mad during reviews could b extrapolated technologies The breadboard models are not iimctional prototypes, although have into configura~ions to emulate a smart gun. Even though the models were not fictional firearms, they had to give the impression to a sized box additional t ‘ +$ electronics necessary to show how the technology an individual. would recognize The models v. (_ performed an enabling operation that was displayed for the user. The breadboard models were built from existing 4 commercial I grouped into the miscellaneous technologies category. Many of these de~ices are ‘mechanical-and benefit of not have the necessarily requiring a power source like the electronic devices. models Demonstration the fabricated after were initial evaluations were complete. The models were chosen to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of (See selected technologies “Demonstration Models”). ‘The models were demonstrated to law enforcement personnel to obtain comments, In this way both the officer’s requirements; and the ongoing evaluations could be validated. The Results Fifleen fourteen evaluated implementations technologies in detail. of were The the implementation of technologies can affect the ranking. What was considered to most be the appropriate implementations were ranked for 5 ● each of the technologies, ments. The category headings are self evident descriptors of the each shows that the highest grade that any of the technologies received was a ‘%”. The grades were obtained from the numerical maintaining the basic building blocks of a smart gun system (see “Smart Gun Analogy”). Each requirements that catego~. implementation rankings are shown without the scores for all the ranked require- importances ments. was scored according to how well it met each These of the requirements. scores were summed to determine a final ranking. The scores were the requirements so that the readers by what was important to both the law enforcement officer and the done to all the technologies important. bring them to a level that a law enforcement officer will value. The symbols used in are shown in the The top four technologies radio frequency devices. perfect technology: reason for this is that radio waves all the one that will officer’s require- ments. Existing technologies that have been optimized for other devices use a code that can be quickly transmitted and checked for errors giving it a high rate of @ o o @ @ @ @ @ @ “ @ o ● @$ ● @ o @ @ @ @ ● o “ @ @ @ @ “ @ e @ “ @ ● ● Remote Control @ ● Touch Memory e @ Fingerprint e Magnetic Encoding (A) @ @ ● o “ o e ● Magnetic Encoding (B) e ● Voice Recognition @ Finger Length Bar Code @ @ @ @ @ ‘ @ @ “ @ ● o o “ 0 o o e o al Key Lock @ ● @ ● “ @ o 0 “ “ Lock ● o o Lanyard Combination travel through most substances so they are not hindered by the same develop these technologies have not targeted a firearm application for their products. The chart @ _ ● @ @ @ Figure 3 Evaluation of Technologies Compared to Requirements 6 One environments as some of the other technologies. Another reason is that these electrical Active Tag Capacitive Proximity all are applications were The companies who commercial evaluated. the technologies (without importances) compared to specific categories of require- to Figure 4 shows that there is no meet designer. Done in a style similar to popular consumer magazines, Figure 3 shows the rankings for More work needs to be can decide for themselves what is the rankings figure. also multiplied by the importance ratings found in the QFD process to weight contained within In this case the “ o o “ o o ● o ● o (9 @ @ o 0 @ @ 0 0 o @ @ 0 @ @ @ Ranking of Technobgiee (w/o importances) B+ 85.9% Technology Figure 4. Ranking of Technologies (without importances) accepting biggest authorized users. frequency concern of the devices electromagnetic interference The has practical radio is overcome, that important qualities problems to This means that the that it does have are to the user, and the Fingerprinting technology ranked as high as it did because its uniqueness of (fingerprint). of the key The key is always would prevent the normal communication from occurring. strengths weaknesses. its outweighed Again, an electrical available to the officer: it cannot be forgotten. The problems have Officers reviewing the radio frequency models liked that there was not critical alignment, or any repeatable device allows a communication of a unique code. A drawback is the alignment of to do with the time it takes to obtain a completed reading of the with and fingerprint, contact, between the model’s key and the discriminator. The radio frequency models could also be the key, Officers evaluating the touch memory model were concerned about the alignment operated while wearing gloves. For the remote control model, a few officers liked the control of manually turning the firearm on this even though off, or own their contradicted requirement of not requiring an action. technology memory Touch scored rather high even though it ● the key and contaminants interfering with the reading between the key and the discriminator. Officers trying the fingerprint model were primarily the discriminator, and that contaminants could interfere with concerned with the size and speed Also, an of the technology. the communication channel. Many officers also are concerned that about any technology requires them to wear an item injured finger, with simple cuts, scrapes, or blood, may not be recognized by the firearm. necessary between such as a ring, or a watchband, that they could forget. The magnetic technologies can use magnetic forces to turn the firearm on and off. This would alleviate the need for some type 7 . of on/off fingerprint. switch that would help While battery life. conserve implementation discriminator orientation A recognition has a better making critical, it less implementa- The goal of voice is to detect the vocal capacitive based on detecting phonemes (the limited potential as a smart gun smallest units of speech). technology. any power source. The concern is the alignment of the key with the discriminator. reasons including sickness, stress, as well as changes or age, difficult due to As the voice discriminated various a person may have a time being recognized. If the system is implemented with a spoken password as a key it means the activation memorized action. a technologies bar codes, tract, but today most systems are tion B may not require the use of Voice recognition is another biometric technology, but in this the cannot be case key The next three (finger length, requires a proximity) all have They either lack a basic building block gun system, or implementation. of a smart lack a good The three final devices, the lanyard, the key lock, and the combination lock came in last as meeting the requirements for a law enforcement officer’s Smart Gun Analogy ,. A smart gun system may be viewed as a type of security The discriminator is the device that distinguishes the The Smart Gun project focused Technology on the system characteristics that make one key different from another. Each key evaluations combinations of of potential keys and has some associated discriminators. The design for analogy, a fwearm. As an in terms it is described of a key operated padlock. analogy pieces: is organized a key, The into three a discriminator, and a latching mechanism. The key does not have to be a metal key like that of the padlock. The key can be any item that has some unique property that can be sensed. Items like electronic a fingerprint, an code, or a combination technology that can distinguish its properties. The latching mechanism is like the shackle on the padlock; the latch physically locks the firearm and prevents it fkom being fwed. When a smart gun system is made up of these three pieces, each piece against can be its evaluated particular implementation mechanism of a latching is left to the firearm manufacturers, This makes sense because this is their expertise: each firearm’s mechanism has been optimally designed, and this limits the reliability and liability concerns of having a mechanism being put into the firearm. requirements. can all be considered a key. KEY ~ Must be: . . Unique Non~changing . Not easily copied Convenient ● DISCRIMINATOR Must be: . Compatible with . Able-to distinguish be&een keys . 8 and to disable the firing mechanism firearm. These devices are less expensive than the technologies and they may other not require any power source. The problem these technologies have is that they do not automatically enable the firearm for the user but require the user to perform action. an This may not be able to be accomplished by an officer during a takeaway situation. The the evaluations. requirements led to an that The system can be viewed lock and key for a firearm. technology’s as a The service firearms. The research validated the problem of takeaways and revealed that up to into a discriminator discriminator recognizes the latching The exist even the key, marketable mechanism The officers often gave qualitative requirements made evaluation difilcult. Using niques a could be that of technologies quality quantitative requirements was used very techset of formed that score each to The number of deaths may not be Evaluations of fourteen technolo- as large as some other categories of ofllcer deaths, but at an average of 16°/0 of all the officers gies showed that each technology had characteristics that scored high in individual categories. killed Mechanical a significant Officers have a very difficult set of requirements for a smart gun technology. One reason that the officers’ requirements are so diftlcult is that the documented set of requirements contain the idealistic wants of the officers, which is suspected to be greater than their actual needs. ranked requirements and being less expensive. Electronic technologies scored high for their ability to discriminate digital codes. Biometric technologies scored high for being unique as a key. However, the evaluation revealed that no technology meets all the officers’ become a capabilities, or in discussed a few products. as Even during the evaluation period new expected within the next few years. As technologies become mature the documented weaknesses may be overcome. The consensus enforcement among officers law is that a smart gun is a good idea and could be very beneficial to their work, if it will meet their requirements. There is a desire by many to have a more secure firearm available for use by law enforcement would officers. Others like to have more secure firearms available to the general public. The information obtained during this project is based solely on the law enforcement requirements for a smart gun. Developing a smart gun that meets law enforcement officers’ idealistic requirements difficult task. characteristics of each of the technologies that ranked high in not advances were made in some of the technologies, with more being idealistic Demonstration models were vital for showing officers how smart gun technologies operate. The models stimulated comments that were fised to validate the requirements and learn other insights from the officer. Officers generally liked the particular did years ago currently requirements. Officers want their firearm to operate predictably: the firearm must remain reliable in all the environments and circumstances that an officer may encounter. This summarizes the most important requirements that need to be satisfied. It is expected that if these items can be met, then the other technologies high for low power consumption percentage. in technologies technology. is change is divided and a latching mechanism. 19 ofilcers a year have been killed during takeaway incidents. it small key is any unique item that the firearm can recognize. The lock firearm. that a number of officers are being killed each year with their a the ranking algorithms, could tilt the scales in favor of another technology. Many of the physically enables or disables the The National Institute of Justice was correct when they recognized Many of the rankings are so close analogy for a smart gun system. while Conclusions own negotiable. generation to come is a very It may take a of smart gun systems and go before gun is not only favored over a this is much as new technologies. this goal a great a smart common but is non-smart gun; it is with other To accomplish deal of time and resources will have to be expended to the optimize technologies for the smart gun application. 9 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 10 Chapter 1 The Smart Gun Technology Project Firearms are used by assailants in most of the recognizing attacks on law enforcement officers that result system in serious injury or death. In some of these attacks the officer is killed by his or her own and as well authorizing firearm as investigate, prioritize existing technologies surety evaluate and for potential use in a “smart gun.” The results of this project will be used to further the goal of eliminating firearm. While the total number nationwide killed in this manner may not be large, the potential threat is present for every officer facing violent and unpredictable subjects. In the capability of an unauthorized user from firing a law enforcement oflicer’s firearm. research back to 1979, as many as 19 deaths Sandia National per year have occurred from an assailant’s use of an officer’s firearm. The National Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), one of the Department Institute Laboratories of multiprogram Energy’s laboratories, has for over four decades applied of Justice As the research and development agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) pursues a wide range its talents, tools, and techniques to solving technical problems of national scale. Established in the 1940s as the engineering arm of the nuclear weapon development system, of programs to prevent crime and improve, the Sandia criminal justice sponsor system. NIJ is authorized to: research and development programs, and special projects; evaluate the effectiveness of new and promising crime control programs; support technological advances applicable to fighting crime and improving criminal justice; information from research, disseminate development, demonstrations and evaluations. has country’s working since largest grown into technical one resources, of the now in areas as diverse as environmental remediation, healthcare, transportation, manufacturing, and criminal justice. For more than 20 years, NIJ has had oversight During its more than 40 years of existence, Sandia has maintained an abiding commitment to technical and scientific excellence in meeting the Department of Energy’s and the industrial nation’s needs. Sandia’s for developing management heritage brings to the Laboratories performance standards for law enforcement products including handcuffs, radios, metallic hand-held firearms, surveillance devices and body armor. With the development of tools and technologies aimed at improving the effectiveness of law enforcement NIJ is under NIJ’s jurisdiction, being supporting a “smart gun” technology research and development proposal. The Smart Gun Technology project is an effort to define a user an emphasis on developing theoretical concepts into useful solutions. The ability to transform knowledge from research laboratory to factory floor, from vision to application, is a Sandia strength3. The Smart Gun Technology project is a project for the Department of Justice. Since Sandia is not in competition with private unbiased look at the problem industry, an of firearm ● 11 takeaways and technologies problem can be conducted to address by Sandia. the A. separate goal of Sandia is technology transfer: the results of this project will be disseminated to private industry to direct the realization of a Initial Comments The following are a set of comments to assist the reader: a “smart gun.” The requirements are given from the viewofficer. Project firearm by implementing intent is not to produce evaluate technologies the officer but to expected has multiple objectives. The first objective The second project objective e firearm. subset of the wants. concept of the most promising technologies. the These wants set a optimum smart Although it mayor gun may not be be set to rank various implementations technologies. ● The masculine pronoun will be of used throughout the report for ease of reading. This is not intended to overlook the role of the female police officer in law enforcement. * The geographic regions and divisions of the United States used in this report follow those used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). are were fabricated to illustrate identification. principles as well as demonstrate proof of to to meet possible to meet the ideal, a standard can Various technologies The third project objective is to demonstrate and document various technology’s strengths of a userand weaknesses in models Models recognizing-and-authorizing firearm. for technology. is to investigate, These technologies the requirements. ranked and the process documented. are able information This report often describes the idealistic “wants” of law enforcement officers; it is understood that the actual “needs” are a target evaluate, and prioritize technologies that may meet the requirements for a user-recognizingand-authorizing that technologists It is their particular needs. is are evaluated regarding their potential to satis@ with the entire system. extract the necessary 22 month, $620,000 project to find and document the requirements for a firearm user-recognizing-and-authorizing technology that law enforcement officers will value. and that the may only meet a requirement in combination a user, as well as be highly reliable, very safe, very secure and meet stringent law enforcement requirements. The focus on law enforcement firearms dictates that authorized users must alsvays be able to operate the firearm and unauthorized users. should never be able to operate the firearm. and the firearm, technology capable of being used in a firearm that can recognize This approximately only one part of the total system along with The project a firearm, stated used in a smart gun, not for the firearm itself. Sometimes the boundaries between the technology and the smart gun system are not evident. It should be understood that the technology is user-recognizing-and- surety technologies. The end user requirements are for the technologies The goal of the Smart Gun Technology project is to eliminate the capability of an unauthorized user from firing a law enforcement officer’s e The report uses phrases such as “officers killed with service weapons” to include both an officer killed by an adversary using his own firearm, as well as an officer killed by an adversary firearm. Deaths using due unintentional discharges, included by these phrases. 12 miscellaneous point of the end user, the law enforcement Smart Gun Technologies Description authorizing for the Reader another to officer’s friendly etc. are fire, not ● It is realized that it is easy to offer suggestions to particular instances in hindsight. In any comments about actual incidents of law enforcement are not attempting to second officers . specifically we guess their addressed in this report. Round off error may be detected in some of Although the ,notential exists for smart ~un technologies to be used in all firearms, the focus of this report will be for law the figures enforcement handguns. ● actions. ● Although rifles, shotguns, and other weapons may be candidates for using smart they will not be gun technologies, calculations rounding. throughout were the report. All completed before 13 Chapter 2 Firearm Takeaways The Need For Investigation Are officers weapons? being killed Available with Are there enough their officers own being killed with their own weapons to consider it a problem? The answer to the first question is definitely yes. Not only are officers being killed with their own weapons, other officers and even citizens are being killed with officer’s service weapons. The answer to the second question is largely a manner of opinion. Some consider a single officer being killed in any manner a problem; others look at the problem statistically for an answer. From the survey results, only a few officers stated concerns that weapon takeaways are not a problem and other more critical topics shouldbe studied. The majority of officers have never seen the statistics surrounding takeaways. There are also false rumors circulated, such as the only time an officer is killed with his own firearm is when the firearm was surrendered to the suspect. Some officers who have not been involved in a struggle for their firearms believe that training alone can solve the problem. Officers who have been in fierce struggles for their firearms seem to believe that even though training is important, in these situations survival takes over where the training leaves off. If officers being killed with their own weapons were not a problem, there would not The Data annual report titled Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), contains the best documented information in the area of takeaways. One problem with this report is that it is a difficult source from which to extract information; the report is sometimes lacking in details or completely fails to include incidents. The process in which the FBI obtains its information individual depends on the processes states that are required of the to supply accurate information on a timely basis. These processes may be lacking, and could affect the accuracy of the report. Information received directly from the FBI data base did not exactly match their own reports; for this document the information was extracted only from the FBI reports. Examples of text from the FBI reports follow (warning.’ these are not pleasant reading): Florida, 1991. On January 18 at approximately 8:10 p.m., a 29-year-old patrolman with the Ft. Pierce Police Department for nearly 4 years was shot and killed. After stopping a vehicle as exists today, and there would not be the availability of products like security retention going the wrong direction on a one-way street, the patrolman ran record checks on the driver who had given several false names. Since no driver’s license could be identified, the patrolman arrested the driver and had him exit the vehicle. While attempting to handcuff holsters for the officers. Awareness training of the problem can reveal to officers the extent of the problem of weapon takeaways. * him, a struggle ensued during which the driver obtained the patrolman’s Sigarms Model P226 9-millimeter semiauto- be as much emphasis on gun retention training 14 matic service weapon. was shot once street. The patrolmap and collapsed Allegedly, on the the driver then stood over the patrolman and shot him 12 more times. Although the patrolman own service weapons. Only when an officer was killed with his own service weapon was it included in the FBI datrq this means the FBI reports contain the most conservative numbers. In reviewing the FBI data we included the was wearing body armor, many of the shots were below his vest. A total of nine rounds entered the patrolman’s turned on others. It is not unusual for a suspect body; 18- to use the firearm taken from an officer, for used to kill that ofllcer, to wound or kill others, his vest stopped year-old suspect burglary charges four. on An probation was apprehended about an hour later and charged with Murder.4 number of other officers killed, but did not include deaths due to officers’ firearms when such as innocent citizens, life. There Illinois, 1990. officers from Two the 20-year veteran Chicago Police are many firearm also and killed at 9:10 p.m. on May 13. The officers’ responded between a to a domestic grandmother and her During the struggle, the offender managed to obtain one of the victim’s weapons, caliber revolver, a Colt Trooper .38- and shot both in the head, back, and chest. Neither victim was wearing body armor, and both were pronounced dead at the scene. A 23year-old male was apprehended and charged with two counts of murder.5 It can be seen from these examples, more descriptive than others. where the is stolen after he is killed officer’s with the help eliminate the value in may stealing weapons. quarrel grandson at her residence. A struggle ensued when the officers confronted th~ grandson in the residential garage. service or to take his own suspect’s firearm. A smart gun technology Department, ages 43 and 46, were shot two cases and some are The information Time Frame of Study FBI reports were analyzed information concerning officers service weapons. 1992 was used to extract killed with Data available from 1979 to for this study. The 1993 detailed FBI report was not yet available, the information but that was available was used This represented a 14-15 where appropriate. year time history to be reviewed. considered reviewed. This was a sufficient time frame to be Included within this time period is the introduction of the security retention holster to law enforcement, and the publishing of other studies that may have increased the awareness of retention problems. in this report reflects our interpretation of the information contained in summaries such as these. This information was later compared to the data extracted from the FBI’s database. Security Retention Holsters and entering information into their Various companies that supply duty gear to law enforcement agencies include retention, or grab-resistant, holsters in their product line. database, the FBI uses the forms submitted by the individual states. One of the pieces of The exact year of introduction of these holsters was not determined, although it is known that information included is whether the officer was the holsters grew in popularity during the early killed with his own service weapon. The FBI data does not reflect if an officer was killed by to mid 1980’s. As with most new equipment it has taken a few years for the retention holsters another officer’s to become In collecting firearm (as was one of the officers in the second example). It also does not present data on the number of takeaway attempts, or assaults on officers involving their accepted and to fit into police department purchasing cycles, but now many larger departments are changing to retention holsters. Retention holsters are not a panacea. 15 There is not an industry standard for retention holster operation; this means that any company each officer should be required to demonstrate proficiency in techniques to prevent the can name their retention levels any way they like. Holster suppliers state the importance of handgun from being taken by the suspect.8 taking necessary precautions to keep In a follow from losing control of a firearm. No holster can completely secure a fireamn from being removed by another person or from coming out or secure best product available for use today as a preventive measure against firearm takeaways. 1986, findings killed, that the officer’s of California suspects in 15% of the killings; this included both the victim officer or another officer’s firearm. They also stated that of those officers assaulted but not killed, 7°/0 were assaulted with their own or another officer’s firearm. In their analysis they found that even though the method by which the suspect obtained the officer’s firearm varies, the majority of the officers killed or assaulted lolst their firearms altercation” with the It is also important to note that the physical condition of the victim officers were average or above average. In the killing incidents, 50°/0 were above average, and the remainder were average physical condition. In the assault cases: 21 ‘Yo were above average, 76’%0 were average, and 3°/0 were below 16 that facilitate impede weapon an escape killing attacks was to from the officer. In comparing data to the previous report, they found that the frequency of weapon takeaways One of the training guidelines for resulting from this study, was that report published by the FBI in retention was also weapons. The question was asked, ‘How much time is provided for teaching officers weapon officers was used by average. officers, ones addressed. 10 Of the 762 law enforcement officers killed from 1981 through 1990, 110, or 14 percent, were killed with their own and stated in its weapon suspect. incidents They stated that the most common 1992, the issue of weapon the problem of firearm takeaways. One of these reports was released by the California Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST).7 This report covered data “physical holster, In a special study there were reports writ$en documenting a takeaway and 16 percent for this study. Also within the time frame investigated in this during the resulting in deaths was nearly identical for the two studies: 15 percent for the previous study Other Studies of After motive for the felonious Retention holsters, with proper training,’ appear to be the. summary assaulted, takeaways. weapon, but others say that after some training 1980 through investigated 1987 and 1989.9 agencies often changed training on gun retention, and recommended changes to a more few officers complain that retention holsters slow down the natural draw of the holstered from between This report documented many facts concerning incidents where California ofllcers were killed during vigorous activity. The officer is still responsible for keeping his weapon secure.6 A and practice there is no difference. up study, POST three year period retention techniques?’ Takeaways ● No answer was given. in San Francisco The San Francisco Police Academy is one of the few agencies that could be found that keeps excellent statistics on weapon retention.11 These statistics are then used for developing training programs for the officers. The information that is gathered includes the number of attempted and successful takeaways, as well as information on the officer, suspect, and circumstances. An attempt, for the San Francisco data, is defined as anyone making an effort to gain control of an officer’s firearm. A success is defined as the officer losing primary Neither number control of his weapon. includes facts about killed or assaulted officers, although 5°/0 of the assaults result in weapon takeaway attempts. 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% $ > 1% 25.0% ~ g 20.0% ;~ a 15.0% ; g 10.0%f 5.0% DO’% “19ss 1989 1990 1992 1991 1993 Year Figure 5. Takeaway Attempts in San Francisco In Figure 5, numerous things can be observed. Note that for 1988 only 8 months of data was available. If the monthly average of takeaways for that year stayed constant, it would have been worse than 1989. The first thing that is noticed is that in 1990 there was a significant decrease in both the total number of attempts, and Since the percentage 1990 the of successfid number of attempts. attempts have remained relatively constant but the percentage simple act of pressing the magazine release or safety may save the officer, Some of the firearm takeaway found in San Francisco follow. trends being While these trends for attempts in San Francisco do not necessarily match the typical scenario for officers killed around the United States, some valuable information can be obtained. . Some suspects have practiced weapon of successi%l takeaways have returned to their takeaways. original levels and is possibly on an increase. This alarming trend may indicate why During 1988-89 there was a 2 hour block of weapon retention training added for the San It is possible that this Francisco officers. successes are increasing. Officers have reported suspects using the same maneuvers they have been taught at the Other takeaway police academies. training was the cause of the decrease, although techniques are taught in magazines and self defense classes for the general if it was the reason, the results were short lived. California POST requires training, but individual some agencies retention decide public. what and how much to implement. Three hours of retention training has again been added to the current training cycle, with an optional three . Suspects have typically used alcohol or narcotics. day course available which officers say helps because of the additional training and practice Alcohol or narcotics use is indicative of the majority of assaults on officers, they receive. and not only for firearm retention. In-hand retention is also being taught to the officers, suggesting they use the firearms external safeties. Many adversaries are not proficient with firearms and, if the officer knows he is about to lose his weapon, the ● The FBI reports that 76% of cop killers interviewed stated they were engaged in drug or alcohol activity at the time of the killing of the law officer. 12 17 There are typically multiple Typical Takeaway United States officers. present. Successful suspects are typically the Incidents From the data researched for the last 14 years same size or smaller than the officer. of officers killed, the following Officers typically experience. been Officers have 6-10 years are slow to detect last four trends could that officers let dowh times certain charted to information has understand the typical takeaway incident that resulted in death of an officer. that the suspect has turned from a defensive to an offensive role. ~ These in the or How many Officers a Service suggest The percentage their guard at certain in are Killed with Weapon? of the officers killed service weapon compared to officers with a killed by must any other means varies year to year. Figure 6 shows the number of officers killed with a always be used by the officers to eliminate the possibility of takeaways ,. occurring. service weapon as extracted from the FBI reports. These numbers include an officer killed by a suspect using his or another circumstances. Proper tactics Separate statistics on attempted come from the survey respondents. survey questions officer’s firearm, The number for 1993 is the FBI stated number because the 1993 detailed takeaways One of the information was not yet available. asked if a suspect had ever. taken, or attempted to take, their firearm. one third (3 So/O) of the respondents Over This information reveals that an average of at some 16% of the officers killed in the line of duty are time during their career had been a part of a weapon takeaway attempt. killed by a suspect armed with a service firearm, either the officer’s own or another 120 _ A officersKilled BY Other Means 100 80 60 40 20 0 Figtire 6. Officers Killed With Sewice Weapons 18 -. ,---- z,-= ,~e-.- Oue to rounding, percentages may not total south 1m Figure 7. Percent of Total Takeaway Incidents (1979-1992) by Region and Division officer’s. Since a peak in 1986 there has been a downward trend in the percentage of officers killed with a service weapon. While this chart displays the number of officers killed, it says Where do takeaways occur? Over half of the total number of takeaway incidents resulting in an officer death have nothing about either the number of assaults on occurred officers with service weapons, or the number of South, in order, are the Midwest, attempted takeaways. Some possible reasons for the decline in deaths may be increased Northeast awareness of the problem, the introduction of security retention holsters, a transition from revolvers to pistols, and the increased use of body armor among officers. In the 14 years of data reviewed, a total of 178 takeaway incidents resulting in an officer’s death were reviewed. The number of offi~ers killed in these incidents was 182, giving an average of just over one officer killed per in the South region. regions. Figure Following 7, the West, and shows the percentage of the total incidents for each region, this is then broken down into individual divisions. The reason the South region has had more than twice the takeaways resulting in death than the next closest region is not known. The South does have the largest population of citizens, and ranks second in officer to population ratio. The Northeast, ranked last in takeaways, has the second greatest population and ranks first in ratio of officers. 13 incident where a death occurs. Only seven takeaway incidents occurred which had greater Showing more detail, Figure 8 displays the takeaway incidents resulting in death by State. than one oftlcer killed with a service weapon. In all of these incidents two ofilcers were killed; sometimes with one service weapon and While this shows the total number of takeaway incidents during the time period studied it does not show a relationship to the number of Figure 9 shows the officers in that state. number of takeaway incidents per region sometimes with two. Of the seven incidents where two officers were killed, all were in the South and Midwest regions, with two being in Chicago. normalized by the number of full time officers in that division. 14 In this view again the South region stands out as having the most officers killed during takeaways. 19 Location of Takeawsty Incidents 20 I to 5 2 0 +%* East S.uth central South Atlmntk W*. I S.uth central East North Centr.1 I South I W..! N.tih c.”!,, Midwest G!#> *’=$ z 2s i Middle New England Mounl.in ! 2 .,,an,,c Location Figure 8. Location of Takeaways Incidents by State, Division, and Region A typical Many Incident of this example exist, firearm and. the takeaway attempt begins. carry firearms, there is a firearm in every situation that the officer enters. Most of the time the firearm is never used, but it is always available to the officer and possibly to the adversary. Most of the incidents occur along a roadway or in a residence, although quite a few occur in transporting departments. prisoners The most common and at police motive for an 16. south Midwest West Northeast Region / Division Figure 9. Officers killed in takeaways normalized by the number of officers empl~yed in the division 20 but some common facts can be seen. Since officers The typical takeaway incident starts as a typical call, either to someone’s home or a traffic stop. The person is going to be placed under arrest and starts in some manner to resist the arrest. At this time a struggle occurs and at some point in the struggle the suspect realizes he may be able to take control of the officer’s variations I I Northeast west I attack on an officer is to escape officer. 15 This attack attempted takeaway. A majority of the may officers from” the result in involved prison setting. in Officers that are killed with a service weapon are usually killed with their own weapons From the data analyzed, 79°/0 of the incidents involved is unknown known a struggle, in 13°/0 it if a struggle occurred. if the ofilcer It is not was able to draw his firearm in these incidents. Ol%cers relinquishing a firearm to an adversary is not a major cause of takeaway deaths. In the So/O with no struggle, various approaches were taken. These methods include stealing officers’ weapons, removing them from their holsters by surprise, or taking officers’ weapons after they have been wounded by some means other than a struggle. The found little to boast about within the an takeaways resulting in their death were killed after a struggle. officer He was even reluctant to talk about the fact that he killed a female. 17 (86%) rather than another officer’s (14%). They are usually in a one on one situation with the suspect. Figure majority of the ofllcers and suspects the ratio of older than the suspect, which is typical crime of any type.18 The information experienced also officer shows for a that the less is more likely to be killed with a service weapon. This data is shown in Figure note that this is not 11, one should normalized by the number of officers age category. involved in takeaways are male. Ninety-four percent of the takeaway deaths involved male officers, and 6°/0 were female. The most likely 10 shows officers to offenders in the incidents studied. In 78% of the incidents the officer killed was in each This trend is similar historical FBI data for officers to the slain. 19 This is reason for this is that there are more male ofllcers than female. Females make up So/O of different from the San Francisco data on attempted takeaways that finds that most takeaway attempts occur to officers in their mid-career years. This may indicate that while more takeaway attempts are made on the sworn officers in the Nation. 16 Also in the experienced FBI’s interviews with offenders they found that them to remain in control of their firearm. some offenders, officers, stated all males who had killed male that they would not have committed the act had the officer been female. The average killer of a law enforcement officer may or may not receive higher status in the prison society for his or her crime, but the one individual interviewed who had killed a female Officers > Offenders Unknown 7% A takeaway officers, their experience attempt can occur enables at anytime. Figure 12 shows the known times of takeaway incidents, the greatest percentage or takeaways occur during swing shift hours. This is similar to the historical FBI data for all officers slain20. Offbers = Offenders 400/” Offendere > Offimrs 25% Figure 10. Ratio of Officers to Offenders During Takeaway Incidents 21 45% 40% 40”h 35% 1o% 5% o% 0-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 Years Years Yeara Years Years Years of Service Figure 11. Years of Service of Officers Killed During Takeaways r 10.9 TimeofDay Figure 12. Time ofTakeaway 22 Incidents Unk. Years Chapter 3 ● A Smart Gun System The generic system. The smart gun system analogy smart gun technology There is no one method of developing a smart gun system. There are many ingenious variations of smart gun systems possible and for the most part the system will contain the same building blocks. The three basic system building blocks can be explained through the analogy of a key operated padlock. The building blocks of a smart gun technology system are the key, the discriminator, and the latch. The framework of this report and the requirements are based off this generic concept. This is not to say that other concepts are not valid, if the user’s requirements ye The analogy of a key operated padlock is beneficial to describe the concept of a smart gun technology system. The analogy works because both are security devices authorized users access to protected items. The key is the item that allows the authorized user access by unlocking the lock. protected items are secured (to The the capabilities of the lock) fi-om any user that does not have the correct key. The lock can be divided into two pieces, the discriminator and the latch. The discriminator is matched to the key. It will read the key and make the appropriate decision on whether should be allowed to open. met. that allow The latch is the object, the shackle in this analogy, used to physically the latch which is secure the protected item. KEY Must be: ● Unique . Non-changing Not easily copied ● Convenient ● / DISCRIMINATOR Must be: . . ‘ Compatible with the key Able to distinguish between keys . Must be able to disable the firing me chanism Figure 13 Sibart Gun System Analogy 23 . Each of these building blocks will The smart gun system The smart gun system is an interdependent be discussed in reference to their application in a smart gun tedmology. The Key The firearm must somehow this is accomplished grouping needs of the system as a whole. The a This security level is one that will protect an officer key is the unique identifier that characterizes the user. The key can be a variety of objects having from his firearm taken and used against him, and at the same time not hinder the normal operation of the firearm. such a fingerprint or an electronic tag. The key must be unique to the individual or group of authorized users. to form secure firearm. Each block alone must have a level of security commensurate with the identify a user; by the use of a key. of these three blocks The firearm may allow The practical operation of the generic smart gun system. access by only a single key, or allow multiple keys. Thus multiple authorized people can use a single firearm, or a single user may be Today, when an officer authorized on multiple firearms. Some types that requires the use of his firearm, he simply of keys can be re-keyed (the uniqueness can be re-coded) while others cannot be easily changed. The key is the crux of the smart gun system; various types of keys were evaluated during this project, draws the firearm from his holster, pulls the trigger, and the firearm fires. This is how officers desire a smart gun technology system to operate also. The following describes how the practical smart gun system might operate The Discriminator The discriminator distinguishes that may happen in the background. different enables keys and is in a circumstance during each of these steps and the activities between the latch for authorized users. The discriminator stores the An officer is enroiled Before an officer is able to use a smart gun information technology needed to remember which keys It then receives keys to are authorized. These readings are acquire new readings. system he must train the firearm This first step is to recognize his key. referred to as enrollment. Enrollment means that a key is associated with the officer, and compared with the previously stored readings of authorized users. If a recognized key is detected then the discriminator with the firearm. It is possible that the officer would enroll himself directly on his ftrearm, enables the latch. or The Latch The latch is the mechanism that physically It must receive disables the firearm. information from the discriminator to know the proper state of the firearm. The latch in a firearm will depend on the actual mechanical operation of the firearm. For this reason the implementation of the latch is left to the firearm manufactures to incorporate as each particular circumstance dictates. This project did not address the implementation of the latch, but did cover the latch requirements, and possible methods and devices that could be used. 24 he could use a separate enrollment machine located at the police department. If the firearm is equipped . with the special enrollment features, the officer presents his key to the firearm and goes through the programming sequence. In this case each firearm is a stand alone system: it does not need an external programming device. This convenience does have some drawbacks, one is that each firearm must have all the circuitry and capabilities as an enrollment machine as well as its normal function. These could include buttons or keypad, indicators or alphanumeric display, and additional logic to perform the function. Because of the extra buttons and fimctions the firearm contains, the cost could increase and the reliability decrease for each drawback firearm. It also has a that the firearm must be given to obtained if a separate enrollment manager for the department does the programming. The every person that will need to be enrolled; skill involved to program the firearm should each of these users has to enroll themselves be no more than that associated with making into every gun that they may ever want to use. a withdrawal Another problem granted to enroll Machine (ATM), using equipment as simple as an interface box attached to a personal is how a new permission user. is Typically someone (such as the owner) is assigned as the enrollment manager. This person has to be present to allow anyone else to enroll. Otherwise, anyone that picked up the firearm could enroll themselves. from an Automated Teller computer. An officer goes on duty Before an officer starts his duty shift he will want to make sure that he has all of his equipment. During this check he will make A more likely approach is to have the officer sure that his firearm is operational. use an enrollment machine. The downside of he will place his hand on the grip the firearm an enrollment machine is that now a separate piece of equipment is used to store all the templates, and there needs to be a method of and check the indicator(s). communication between the machine and the firearm. Each police department would have to have access to an enrollment machine. enrollment machine would The store the unique characteristic of each user in a database that is maintained by the officer’s department. Each user would only need to be enrolled one time at the machine and then this information To do this There will be an indicator to show that the firearm recognizes the person holding it. If the smart gun system contains a battery there will also be a low battery warning indicator. the batteries need to This will show if be replaced. By checking these indicators the officer can be The sure that the system is operational. indicators need to stated in this report. meet the requirements An officer needs to use his weapon. Now that the officer is authorized, and knows could be downloaded into the appropriate firearms. This would insist that the biometric that the system is operational, readers are standardized use his firearm any time the key is available. produces the same so that any reader resultant templates would be transferable. the officer template, so To do this takes his smart gun system to the he is able to When the situation arises to use lethal force the officer grips the firearm in his hand. At station and plugs the firearm into the interface box. The database operator then programs the firearm with the officer’s key. As offic&s this time the firearm’s discriminator must read the officer’s key. This is the first hurdle that the system designer must cross. It is never known when the firearm may be used. join or leave the department the enrollment machine is updated, and then at some time When the circumstance arises, there is not time for the officer to perform any special each operations to wake up, or turn on, the firearm. firearm needs enrollment machine enrollment machine’s to be brought to be updated. to the The data base could easily track what users are authorized for any firearm. Once an officer is authorized he is able to use the firearm whenever the firearm The additional has access to the key. circuitry that the firearm needs is some means of talking to the programmer: a connector, an infra-red link, or some other interface. Although an officer could operate the machine himself, additional security can be The smart gun system must be able to sense the need to read the key. It is possible that the discriminator may be constantly looking for the key, but this constant looking may be impossible if other requirements such as the required battery life must be met. Possible methods for accomplishing this task are to have a switch attached to the firearm that is automatically closed when the firearm is in the hand of the user. In another method the system might sense the removal from the 25 . complete holster, although this might limit other when the firearm is not applications holstered. Now that the system discriminator’s has turned on, primary results of this project. are the as an The officer pulls the trigger and the gun fires All the reading and distinguishing of the key the reader must read the key. The methods for this to be accomplished and the user is identified authorized user. At this time the latch should enable the firearm. ‘ must occur in the time it takes for the officer to draw and pull the trigger of his weapon. After the key the circumstance has been read, this new reading is compared that an officer In has lost his with the readings of the authorized users that firearm and has just regained are stored in memory. the memory depend These factors include: firearm must be able these actions must occur in the time it takes for the officer to grip the firearm and pull the trigger. The requirements for on numerous factors. how many users the to store, how much of it, Other system concepts memory space each user’s key requires, the time it takes to search all of the valid users So many approaches and make a decision covered. acceptability, reprogrammed, control for the current users if the memory must be and if the memory must possible smart gun exist that they cannot The approach described system all be in this chapter is thought to be the most complete and adaptable. Other concepts do exist and remember its contents without any power. have merit if the officers’ Now that the discriminator has performed a check to see if the new reading matches any met. As an example of another concept is one in which a safe zone is created around the of the pre-stored can enable the “good readings, the discriminator latch. The latch firearm, should guys”. currently have the firearm disabled; it should remain disabled until the comparison is ● 26 guys” requirements so that anyone but they cannot are can fire the shoot the “good SECTION 2 THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A SMART GUN TECHNOLOGY 27 Chapter 4 Requirement Methodology To correctly Gathering Overview a logical approach was Research was conducted to understand the officers, their . determine the requirements for a smart gun technology taken, Process their firearms, requirements for a questionnaire was developed officers. their duties, and smart gun. A and distributed to This survey was designed to focus on specific smart gun technology issues. The with personal and survey was followed telephone interviews as time allowed. Finally the information was digested To gun technologies all the information collected, from the literature, survey analysis, and interviews, process described to gather in this section, is modeled approach used by AT&T No + d= Analyze Process followed Enough Data? Yes was studied for commonalties. The 0 Pilot into a set of requirements for the technologies. formulate the requirements for smart Data Gathering 1 1 data, and after the. Bell Laboratories.21 The process flow is shown in Figure 14. The process is discussed in detail to disclose the Figure 14. Data Gathering Process Flow exact techniques used. Planning Stage A broad reaching method was needed to quickly understand the wants and needs of many officers. Information from officers, at all ranks and in various types of law enforcement, needed was determined, and the location of that Initial plans were data was documented. developed for each stage of the process and a Data Gathering Plan drafted. Preparation Stage was needed to understand officer’s viewpoints on a number of issues. During the planning The process continues with the preparation stage. In this stage the areas to be covered in stage of the process the survey objective, and were information methods of obtaining developed. The type of information that was the survey were developed through preliminary conversations with officers and literature 28 searches. needed A survey was designed to collect the data, yet not require more than 5-7 minutes to complete. Appendix B contains the questionnaire. completed with both a set of police officers and persons that would be analyzing the data. Questions were reviewed to assure a consistent understanding (reliability) The surveys were made up of question! to determine the attitude of individuals. Attitudes are the mental states of individuals that would stimulate accurate information (validity). The survey was revised as necessary throughout this stage. composed Data Gathering Stage of their feelings, knowledge, and the way they act. T’hese attitudes are the conditions that The surveys were distributed through numerous influence how they take in and use information methods. as the basis for action. The survey included both open and closed ended questions. departments, Open ended questions were used to obtain opinions and to probe the attitudes of the officers, The responses were characterized to determine the range and number of concerns of officers, and to be able to capture responses in the respondents’ own words. It is always possible that open ended questions can be To minimize this, all open misinterpreted. ended questions two analysts. Closed were interpreted by at least ended questions were used to measure attitude intensity. a Likert-type Closed ended questions used This response format scale. developed by R.A. Likert (1932) represents a bipolar continuum. The low end represents a negative response while the high end represents a positive response.zz Respondents were informed that they were not They required to answer all the questions. informed that the were specifically demographic information was optional. page was distributed with the surveys to explain more filly the project goals A cover letter was also sent and objectives. with the mailed surveys asking the respondent to circulate the surveys to appropriate people. Pilot-Test Stage The questionnaire was pilot tested before being Independent reviewers, publicly distributed. data analysts, and human subject testing questwns, reviewed the content, experts instructions, and mechanics of the survey. Individual trials of the questionnaire were were distributed mailed at law to police enforcement conferences, published in a law enforcement professional journal (American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers Journal), and copies passed on from these people to others. People were encouraged to distribute copies to other knowledgeable people. Officers from various organizations at all levels of law enforcement were covered. This method of distribution was not intended to give a scientific sampling of law enforcement, and no extrapolation to a larger population of officers is intended. Because of the manner of distribution it is impossible to establish a response rate. A postage paid return envelope was included with the survey when distributed by mailings or direct distribution. Surveys were returned by mail, fax, and e-mail. Surveys were logged into a computer system as they arrived. Analysis Analysis project An informational Surveys Stage started at a date selected to meet At this time sufficient deadlines. surveys were received (319) to meet the survey objectives, and trends could be seen in the data. After this date new survey results were not tallied with the rest, but each was reviewed for any comments that would not support the existing data, none were found. Qualitative data was received from the open The ended questions on officers’ concerns. analysis goal of this information was to reduce the numerous responses into a meaningful few. All open ended questions were interpreted by at The information was least two analysts. sorted, and rechecked for categorized, 29 ● consistency within the category. Quantitative, or numerical, data was collected from the close ended questions. Descriptive statistical information was collected to look for central tendency and variability. Follow-up interviews were conducted in person and by telephone until the trends of the answers were repeating and time demanded completion. The interviews were used to check the interpretation of the questions to again validate the survey. The interviews were sought to Survey results are presented throughout this report with the appropriate sections of text as quantifiable attitudes of the surveyed officers. Data is presented in various manners depending on how it can be best understood in the context of the information presented. The officers’ concerns are often used exactly as written on the surveys, or are paraphrased, in the text of the report. The officers’ identities are not given for protection of their personal privacy. Characteristics of Respondents understand the importance of the respondents’ answers and any extenuating circumstances A wide range of law enforcement that may influence an answer. During the interviews answers could be elaborated upon responded to the surveys. The goal was to include varied types of officers and this goal and inconsistencies could be questioned. In depth personal interviews were conducted with was achieved. Some characteristics respondents are charted here. officers during the swing shift at the Kansas City Police Department, and the day shift at the. Albuquerque Police Department. Reporting All of the information collected and analyzed, from preliminary interviews, literature searches, law enforcement conferences, the surveys, follow-up interview, and other means, was used in the analysis of the officers’ requirements. This report documents those findings. % of USSurVevRespondents % of USPc@btion” (1992] % of Total Officers Killed ., (19921 r / (9P— 24 in Figure 15, generally the match the population of the Nation, except for the South. The South had a much greater response than the other regions. One reason for this may be that since the percentage of law officers killed is much greater in the South, the officers are more concerned about their safety and methods of prevention. The number of takeaway incidents is also the greatest in the South. Surveys outside of the United States were received from Canada, Puerto Rico, and 58 20 I F 11 13 I d West nx<3 >?? , --..,.-.. Figure 15. Survey Respondents By Region 30 of The persons responding to the survey, as shown characteristics Stage personnel Northeast 1 63% 8% 2% , Academy city Federal County State Tribal University Unknown Type of Agency Figure 16. Survey Respondents By Type Of Agency the United Kingdom. Figure 16 shows the percentage of respondents and the type of agency with which they are affiliated. A wide range of agencies responded. The majority of the respondents were from city, or municipal, police departments. largest percentages of respondents county agencies. agencies Of course, these two types of jointly enforcement The next were from provide most of the law service in the Nation.23 and usually the first title listed was used.’ range of personnel responded seen in Figure 18. Over half of the officers were in the range of 11-25 years experience in law enforcement. These are ol%cers that have seen many ideas in law enforcement come and go and have definite opinions on the way things A smaller percentage of should operate. younger officers also responded These officers often like the concept of advancing the technology Figure 17 shows the percentage of survey respondents by the title placed on the survey. Many officers listed more than one position, wide The responses that were analyzed came from officers with a wide range of experience, as of law enforcement. Officers with more experience were usually in administrative roles including planning, teaching, as well as some Chiefs of Police. A to the survey, from management positions, to trainers, This variation of people to patrol officers. allows the information to not be biased by only one category of people responding. Although only 6.3°/0 of the respondents had titles of instructors, a total of 26.9°/0 of the respondents worked in the training areas at various levels. People in the area of training are involved because they are usually well informed on the needs of the officer. They are often responsible for tracking statistics on the officers, as well as recommending and implementing training programs. 31 . w W Percentage of Respondence Percentage of Respondents 0 0 m 0 g 0 G 0 w 0 0 N 0 Agent 0-5 Captain V m Chief Civilian 6-10 ~ Commander Commissioner II-15 16-20 0 ; k, F Corpfmsl Deputy Chief $ 5 : 0. 0 F cd Deputy Sheriff . 21-25 5 g Detective -1 ~ 0 Dkector Inspector Instructor 26-30 : -n 03 ; : -Q 0 0. m w a < Lieutenant Major . : 0 WI u m OfKcer 31-35 Other Sergeant >40 “nknownm Supervisor Trooper Under-Sheriff Unknown u : ; 0 w 0. k N 0! L Chapter 5 Officers Concerns From Concerns ways to see if certain concerns to Requirements One method of determining the requirements of the law enforcement officers is to understand, and address, their concerns. From all of the gathered data, the oftlcers’ concerns were listed. In the questionnaires distributed to law enforcement questions personnel, were asked. two open eqded One sought to than others. ranked higher No matter which way they were characterized, the rankings did not significantly change. Figure 19 shows the total number of tallied concerns in any single category. Each of the respondents’ concerns will be addressed by category in this chapter of the repofi, with associated requirements assigned. As can be seen from Figure 19, the understand the officers two main concerns about smart gun technologies, and another sought any two problems that a smart gun technology could cause them. The responses from these two questions were categorized and tallied. The interpretations of some comments At least two analysts were subjective. overwhelming concern of the officers is the effect that the addition of a smart gun technology has on the reliability of their firearm. The number of respondents that stated a reliability related concern is almost three times that over any other concern. Many of the categorized other concerns listed by ofllcers each response The responses to minimize were then analyzed bias. in various have a hint of reliability in them. When the survey results are 400 350 300 250 & E 2 200 150 100 50 0 Concerns Figure 19. Officers’ Concerns Relating to Smart Gun Technologies 33 compared to the data gathered by other means, the results show consistent concerns. It is unlikely that the survey questions influenced 10,000 Mean Rounds Between Stoppages the officers concerns. (MRBS), where the only class of stoppages allowed are those that can be cleared by the weapon operator within 10 seconds. Another Discussions the probability of firing a full magazine without way that the reliability of Concerns There are numerous methods of documenting the information collected during this study. The following sections of this chapter list officers concerns. Each of the concerns listed will be addressed in decreasing order of significance as determined by the number of respondents stating it as a concern. reasons behind an officer’s ● For each be Law standards require enforcement greater than 99.9°/0 firing a or 5 malfi,mctions are allowed for revolvers25 and pistols26, respectively. Information on service life can be found in Appendix A. viewpoint, concluding in a list of requirements. summary of requirements can be found Appendix C. stoppage should probability.24 stated is: total of 600 rounds with a verification of measured parameters afier the test. A total of 1 concern a deductive approach is used to explain the is sometimes However A in the reliability is stated, either as percentages or MRBS, the addition of a smart gun technology cannot significantly reduce the reliability of the firearm system compared to existing firearms, Reliability Without a doubt the most important aspect of a smart gun technology must be reliable. Requirement: is that the entire system technology Numerous terms are used to The addition must not significantly describe the concern of not operating properly. reliability After personal interviews and follow-up calls, words such as the following, in the correct context, indicated a concern for a reliable technology: reliability, foolproof, fail-safe, malfunctions, disabled, zero-error tolerance, existing firearms. dependability, A primary concern of officers failure rate, breakdowns, of the firearm Environments and gun technology works every time. * To the officer, the firearm is another tool that is of a smart gun circumstances reduce system compared the to & Circumstances operates is that the smart in all conceivable and environments in which they available to be used. The difference is that the firearm is only used when the circumstances of an officer’s work demand that lethal force be used. Then the firearm must work because the officer’s life is at stake. Lethal force can only be used after the officer determines that his life could find themselves. It was not possible to separate the concerns of operating in all circumstances from operating in all environments, when answering the open ended question about concerns of the officer. Some of the phrases that were interpreted to be contained in this category were the need to is in danger. These facts explain why the number one concern among officers is the reliability of the smart gun technology. operate: at the worst possible moment, in extreme conditions, as needed, through use and The military requirements. has very Handguns stringent reliability used by Special Operations personnel are designed for a service life of 30,000 rounds without repair or These specialized replacement of parts. firearms 34 can also demonstrate a minimum abuse, in all weather climates, in all expected and unexpected situations and conditions, during critical confrontations, in all field conditions, and with all types of contaminants such as dirt or blood. After studying these concerns one learns that working conditions are ofllcers the The environmental unpredictable. conditions Requirement: must operate conditions. The smart gun technology in all likely environmental that ofilcers face depend mainly on their locale. The same firearms are used by p:lice departments in Florida as in Alaska. This means that a single technology must also operate in the environments presented by those states. For specifics on the environmental requirements of a smart gun technology see Appendix A. The circumstances that an officer may face are also unpredictable. The people that the officer deals with are often unpredictable. Adversaries may be calm and rational or they may be outof-control Multi-Users Officers often think in worst case scenarios. This is not unusual when you consider the number of situations that can arise for an ofilcer. One worst case scenario is that an ofilcer may need to use another officer’s firearm afler he has run out of ammunition or his firearm has failed, and the other officer is incapacitated to a point that they cannot use their firearm (or vice versa). Although actual statistics could not be found on the number officers having to use another officer’s firearm on drugs. The adversary may simply citizen that has gotten be an average themselves into an unintended or embarrassing to defend themselves, it is thought that it is a very infrequent occurrence. We do know that circumstance, these situations occur. or the trained and practiced committed. adversary may have for the crime they have The officer may deal with a single adversary or be confronted by multiple people. The officer may be alone or have a partner, or backup, available. Accounts in the FBI Law Officers reports.27 can be found Killed and Assaulted Officers are concerned about losing the capability of using another officer’s when their life may depend on it. firearm The officer must also deal with the particular conditions of the situation. An officer may be called to duty on a hot sunny summer day on a Some of the people that officers thought should be able to use their firearms included: partners, other officers within the department, officers county/state/jurisdiction, from another sandy beach, or a cold snowy winter night. The gunsmiths and armorers, trainers, and friends call the officer of responds to may be a quiet swampy area, or a barroom with deafening The officers music and screaming people. described in the above scenarios could be the officer such In follow-up spouses. as helpful citizens or talks, the majority of officers said that it is not important for friendly Officers citizens to use officer’s weapons. sweaty, sandy, wearing gloves, snowy, wet, and No matter what the circumstances shouting. the officer may find himself in, his firearm must still operate. cannot depend on citizens to protect them when it is their duty to protect the citizens. Officers agree that it is unlikely that they would ever use one of their fellow oflicers firearms, some had never even considered it a valid possibility. They felt that it is even more unlikely that they Requirement: The addition of a smart gun technology must not significantly reduce the circumstances in which the firearm will operate, compared to existing firearms. would Requirement: A single individual must be able to activate a smart gun technology 4 without assistance from others. have jurisdiction their own to use the firearm of another that would not be compatible with Also with more semi- firearm. automatic weapons with larger magazines available, the chance of running out of ammunition and needing to use another officer’s weapon is even less. Officers were also concerned that the smart gun technology may be only found on a certain model or type of firearm. This would not only limit selection 35 * 39 “/. Strongly Disagree Neither Agrea No Strongly Agree Disagree Response Response Figure 20. Survey responses to: Other authorized people should be able to use my firearm. and personal choice of firearms, but also may drive up the cost. Officers realize it is highly unlikely that they would use another officer’s firearm. Despite this fact, in responding to the survey statement, ‘My partner, or other authorized people, have to be able to use my gun,’ they overwhelmingly agree that others should be able to use their weapon. This is shown in Figure 20. This concern is part of not wanting to lose an While existing capability of their firearm. operating between multiple users may not be a requirement, it definitely is something the officers desire and may be needed to gain full” acceptance. Not all police firearms are single user firearms. Frequently in police cars there is a rifle or shotgun that is common to all who use that car. The smart gun technology should also be applicable for use on multi-user firearms. In some departments, officers are allowed to Officers who carry carry backup firearms. 36 backups desire the capability of using the same means of identification for the backup as for their primary weapon. This means that the officer could switch between firearms without any special actions. The number of officers that any one firearm might need to recognize could greatly vary. There are approximately 860,000 police officers in 17,000 departments across the United States. While that works out to be an average of 50 officers per department that statistic is misleading. Currently the size of police departments in the United States is small: only two departments have more than 8,000 officers, 90% have fewer than 24 and 50’XO have fewer than 12 officers, officers.28 There is no such thing as a standard police firearm. A few departments require that officers use a specific firearm, with the goal of uniformity of training and interchangeability of parts. Some departments may offer a choice of a few makes and models, and other departments have no stated preference on make or model as long as it operationally meets a departmental standard operating procedure. Information from the survey respondents shows that within this small number of officers, seven different makes of firearms are used. Within these seven makes, there were over 60 different This information models of firearms used. shows that many makes, and many different models within those brands are used by officers. mainly with firearm. The firearm the physical should qualities physically of the look like existing firearms, preferably identical to them. If a suspect cannot recognize the weapon, then not have the desired the ofllcer may intimidation over them. A smart gun needs to look like an existing firearm. Both officers and suspects need to be able to recognize weapon when they see one. a lethal There have been numerous shootings when toy guns have been The smart gun technology Requirement: should be capable of being used by multiple users. There must be a method for Requirement: armorers and manufacturers to test the smart gun technology. ‘Requirement: The smart gun technology must be applicable to multiple types and brands of firearms. Requirement: The technology should also be applicable for use on multi-user firearms. i.e., shotguns. Requirement: The technology must operate for a single individual on multiple firearms. Requirement: Individual smart gun product lines should ultimately have interchangeable parts that are not easily disassembled and can be replaceable without special tools. . drawn on officers. firearm they contains try or If suspects cannot tell if the a smart gun technology, even succeed in obtaining if an off:cer’s firearm, the officer will still have an upper hand on the suspect. If suspects could tell the difference, it is possible that they may look for ofllcers who do not have smart guns. Figure 21 shows smart gun should gun.’ Officers that officers agree that ‘a look just like an existing would like some recognizable feature on the smart gun so that the trained eye could identi~ one, even from some distance. This allows them to tell what type of firearms other officers are using. The other part of the concern deals with the actual physical characteristics of the firearm. Weight of the firearm is a concern, Officers must carry on their person all the equipment that they are likely to need in performing duties. their When the situation arises, they are not able to run back to the car to get the equipment are concerned about both the Officers appearance and characteristics of their firearm, Sorting through the responses it is found that that they need. An officer’s duty belt is heavy when loaded with equipment such as: their loaded firearm (40 oz.), a pair of extra magazines or speed loaders, a flashlight, handcuffs, keys, chemical agent dispenser, baton, and gloves. Not only is the equipment much of this concern heavy, it also creates difficulties Characteristics is due to resistance to in getting in change and having to relearn how to fire a new It is assumed that after the weapon. and out of the car without The smart gun technology appropriate time of getting familiar with any new device, the officers would use it if it had merit. The concerns mentioned by officers deal appreciable additional weight to carry or cause additional appendages to the firearm that would increase the difficulties in movement while carrying the firearm. snagging objects. cannot create an 37 . 45% 42% 1 ova 5% o% Strongly Oisagree Neither Agree Disagree Strongly Agree No Response Response Figure 21. Survey responses to: A smart gun should look just like existing firearms. The technology should not affect the existing’ standards that exist for trigger pull, If the trigger pull is too light it could be considered a safety hazard. If it is too heavy the trigger may be too difficult to pull and shoot accurately. In general, laboratory tests and field experience has determined that more than 18 pounds is a difficult trigger pull for most shooters to maintain accuracy .29 The smart gun technology should also not Requirement: The smart gun must have the general appearance of an existing firearm. Requirement: The addition of smart gun technologies cannot appreciably change the weight, size, or balance of existing firearms. Requirement: The addition of smart gun technologies cannot add appendages which would increase appreciably snagging compared to an existing firearm greatly affect the size: the firearm needs to be manageable. Officers with smaller hands need to be able to properly grip the firearm. Some Requirement: The smart gun technology should not affect the carrying of firearms in existing holsters. officers will change the grips on their firearm to a more comfortable grip. If the firearm is too bulky or cumbersome it may hinder the officers use, retention, or concealment of the weapon. The additional technologies should not alter the balance of the weapon that could Requirement: The smart gun technology must not affect the existing trigger pull standards. effect the accuracy. Proper Recognition Existing holsters should be able to be used. The devices should not affect” gripping the weapon, or limit the manner in which the firearm must be held. 38 Another concern that officers have with a smart gun technology is that it may not recognize them properly when it comes time to operate the weapon. The comments received from the ofllcers concerning proper recognition included association with biometric sensors they will be applied to the other technologies as well. In statements such as the smart gun technologies general, must: be owner loyal, recognize described as follows: identi~ authorized the handler, persons, recognize legitimate users, and not recognize unauthorized of many users. these In talking to oi%cers, concerns unfamiliarity with the technologies either came from that may be applied in a smart gun. The ofilcers’ concerns are valid; definite error rates in recognition exist, both for not being accepted by their own of the error rates be Numberof FalseRecognitions ErrorRate= In x 100’?/0 Numberof AttemptedRecognitions actual application most recognition technologies use a measurement of what is being recognized compared to a threshold to make decisions. Depending on the technology a number of attributes may be measured and a firearms, and for adversaries being accepted by score determined. ofilcer’s be retrieved in some test configuration firearms. can This score should be able to so that are defined in various ways. An attempt as used to describe a smart gun technolo~ is can be used during specialized training, and for quantifiable Many recognition ranking of technologies. technologies have a threshold that can be defined as one cycle of an individual using the technology as proof of being a validly varied to change the level that the decision for acceptance or rejection is made. Thus, a police authorized than one try is allowed per attempt, where a try department or officer could set the threshold to control the probability of false rejects versus describes a single presentation of the individual false accepts. to the technology acceptance Error rates are described as percentages occurrence attempt, per verification user. In some of Attempts applications for measurement,30 more For smart gun technologies a try and an attempt are equated: the firearm must operate on the first try (attempt) that an officer firearm. makes to use his A false-rejection is the percentage rate (FRR) of times an authorized user who makes an honest attempt to be verified is rejected. This is the case when an officer A positive feedback is desired by most indicator of officers (see section on Indicators). The smart gun technology Requirement: must properly recognize, and limit the use of the firearm, to the authorized user. Requirement: The must operate on attempt. smart gun technology the first verification attempts to use his own firearm but is falsely rejected. A falserejection error is called a Type I error. A falseacceptance rate (FAR) is the percentage of times that an unauthorized user is accepted as authorized. This would be the case where an assailant tries to use on officer’s firearm add is successful. A false-acceptance error is called a Type II error. The type of false-acceptance we are referring to here are passive attempts, where the assailant submits himself as the authorized information diagnostics, For applicable recognition Requirement: technologies the actual recognition score, rather than a simple golno-go indication, available in a testing should be configuration. Requirement: For applicable recognition technologies, a method of adjusting the recognition threshold by a qualified person is recommended. user, and not an overt act of the assailant to mimic the item being recognized (covered later). Techniques, such as the use of personal identification (PIN) numbers, can be implemented to reduce both error rates. Although these terms are most often used in Simplicity Today’s firearms are relatively simple devices designed to do one thing: fire a round when the trigger is pulled. Although the firearm designs 39 have become more efilcient cost and less likely to accidentally discharge, the operational designs have not significantly changed in the past few Cost is an issue for any law enforcement product. Police departments are often funded to only the minimal levels necessary to decades. Various models have different internal or external safety mechanisms, but none are difficult to learn. The addition of a smart gun technology must primary use of the weapon. smart gun technology not effect maintain a status quo in the protection general public. the department budget is spent paying salaries, and The addition of a only a small percentage is available to purchase to a firearm should be transparent to the user. b Officers agree that the addition of a smart gun technology must not complicate the use of their their other concerns. the primary concern reliability, fear that the more complex officers equipment, Many departments cannot afford to supply or update their existing equipment to the latest technologies available. Discretionary equipment that is available to assist the officer in their job may not be purchased until the next firearm. The KISS principle, “keep it simple,” applies. The reasons that officers are concerned about the added complexity cross over to many of conjunction with model comes out and the price drops, if at all. An additional factor is that most departments are small and do not have the buying power to In of get large quantity discounts. This also hurts the manufacturers, in that the law enforcement market is so fragmented it becomes hard for the firearm gets and the more parts it contains, the more likely it will be to fail when it is them to recoup their development costs in a time frame such that they can make the product needed. The smart gun technology device should also be able to be used during any stressful more affordable. Technology experts say that because the law enforcement market is so limited, only one technology could be used for circumstances. A passive device that requires no actions by the officer is favored. The device all law enforcement firearms to get volume should not have too many steps to operate, or production be a hindrance to the officer. The device must not be so complicated that it would take too long to operate: it must be ready to operate be expanded to the general public. instantly. It must not “take a rocket scientist” ● to operate: it must fit into the comprehension level of the officer with the minimum required amount of training and skills, simple to maintain, even possibly Most of these topics individual sections. costs, or the market would have to Officers typically have to purchase their own firearms for their jobs. Even for those departments that were to subsidize officers in purchasing new firearms, the cost must be in a range that it is affordable. Officers have views of what is affordable that cross the entire It must be in the field. are covered of the The greatest part of a typical spectrum of possibilities. Some officers suggest that the safety and peace of mind of in their knowing that someone cannot use their firearm Requirement: The addition of a smart gun technology must not effect the primary use of firing the weapon by the authorized user. against them would be worth spending up to twice what a current firearm costs. This argument is somewhat supported by the cost of the one commercial magnetic ring firearm that is available and is marketed to the general public; it costs approximately twice that of a normal firearm. On the other extreme, some Requirement: The addition of a smart gun should be technology to a firearm operationally transparent to the user. Requirement: The addition of a smart gun technology must not complicate the use of the firearm. officers rationalize that if this is a safety device it should be included as part of the firearm without any additional cost. In conversations with various product manufacturers, a possible * 40 target for a smart gun technology approximately production. may be 10°/0 additional cost in volume is to train the officer in various tactics that can ● Officers also mentioned concerns regarding the financial constraints of departments. officers is expensive Training and if a smart gun was available, a department may reduce training in the area of gun retention to offset the additional cost of the smart gun technology. Also there are other costs that must be considered. These include the routine maintenance of the firearm, which includes purchases such as batteries, and also the cost of any additional needed. infrastructure It is not known whether a department, which would mandate the use of smart guns, could receive frequency of occurrence, the typical scenarios, and warnings to be prepared. Physical training a reduced premium for liability be used to prevent a takeaway but the focus maneuvers is on the practice of holds and that will Approximately 27% The additional production Requirement: cost to incorporate a smart gun technology to a firearm should not add more than approximately $50 to the purchase price.. Any additional costs Requirement: associated with the use of smart gun technologies should be minimized. officer the various levels trainers. to the from training officers from academy directors One of the main concerns at to listed by no matter how smart the gadget, what is needed is a smart officer. This expresses the concern that officers may become more dependent on a technology and less dependent on their training. A false sense of security may occur when officers depend too much on their equipment and not their own capabilities, because technologies can fail. Some trainers suggest that with enough training there would be no weapon takeaways. This may have some truth, but is an over statement when all the possible scenarios are reviewed. Of the survey respondents who have been Training is important job. for all aspects of an Today this is not only true for the need to enhance officer safety, but also for the need to reduce the possible liability of the Officers must be trained in the department. proper use of each piece of their equipment. Although the of the responses survey were received training of ofllcers: officer’s give advantage to keep, or regain, control of the situation. The most well known gun retention training techniques may be those started at the Kansas City Police Department by Jim Linden in the 1970s. these trainers was that gadgets cannot replace insurance. Training when in the situation. It may also cover awareness training, all departments have requirements for training, the requirements will change from department to department. Training may only be implemented atler an incident brings the need into the focus of the department, and possibly the community. There are two general types of gun reterition awareness training and physical training: Awareness training is to inform training. officers of the threat of having their service weapons taken from them. It may cover the involved Figure in takeaway 22 responses, involved. situations, it is seen in that a wide range of physical from survival to training, were In follow-up conversations, officers said that training is the starting point to remain in control of their firearm during a takeaway incident, and is often all that is needed. The trained responses continue until they are no longer effective, then survival takes over the officer’s actions. Officers are concerned that departments may eliminate training on gun retention if smart guns become available. This would save the department money. Any change in training is time consuming and costly. It can become a logistical problem to cycle officers through new training programs that take them out of the 41 35% 31% 30”A i 5% o% I Smival More Survival In Between More Training Training Response Figure 22. Suwey responses to: The behavioral response used during a takeaway incident. field. The new training programs may have to be developed. The transition to new equipment and training can cause problems if different equipment is in service and all officers have not been properly trained. Trainers are concerned about the amount and complexity of new training that would be required. Trainers say that with proper training conditioned response can be any new developed. What is needed is an education of how a smart gun technology would work, at least to the level of understanding the required Officers maintenance and proper operation. fear that in stressfhl situations they may revert When new o to old training and habits, equipment becomes available new recruits will Many departments usually transition easily. grandfather in existing officers when new equipment becomes available because of the officers concerns of changing old habits, or even sometimes because of union constraints. Training at the range and in class must also be considered as a way to get officers to know and trust this new technology. The training of the trainers, the armorers, and others should also be considered. 42 All of these concerns are not specific to smart Many of these same gun technologies. concerns are used when any change occurs, such as the transition from revolvers to semiautomatic weapons. The issues raised are more easily dealt with when the officers and trainers understand the need for change, and desire the change to be made. Requirement: Smart gun technologies must cause only minimal additional training, such as transitional training and in service training on proper use. Requirement: Smart gun technologies must enhance and not eliminate weapon retention training. Requirement: training must Smart extend gun beyond technologies the use technologies and include training armorers and others as appropriate. of for Adversarial Technology Compromise The majority of scenarios Of Maintenance of police ofilcers being shot with their own firearms are not planned attacks. Although there are The amount and type of maintenance necessary for a smart gun technology is a concern to many oflicers. officers reflected officers do not maintain to find an officer and take his firearm. The question that is still on the mind of many their weapon very carefully,” and another who officers is: “How secure can a smart gun be?”. maintain the system”. The consensus is that there is a history of poor maintenance by officers. The maintenance requirements for exceptions, the adversary does not usually plan Just as hackers attack computer networks, it is a fact that the criminal element will try to find out how to defeat the smart gun technologies. Any technology such as this becomes widely known. public Many should officers feel that the general not allowed be to have a said: “Most Comments from numerous the statement of one who police said, “... the average shooter/officer will not smart gun technologies must be held to a level that the average officer will do. Proper documentation must be supplied. There are maintenance and hands of the general public the “secret” will be installation of out, and they will while the firearm is in service. The smart gun must be capable of repeated maintenance They feel that in the be left having a useless firearm. The general public will probably have this technology available to them. It is unlikely that the judicial system will allow the firearm industry to withhold any feature that could the acquisition costs with such as this. both time associated technology the technologies, and/or as well as without damage or a decrease in performance. Problems may occur if the maintenance is increased to a level that is too complicated. reduce fatalities caused by firearms from any Officers may not perform the normal suggested sector of the population. maintenance. The technology must not be easily even with full knowledge operates. The technology defeated of how the system used in a smart gun must have a unique characteristic that is, not easily replicated, or jammed by an outside source. The identifier that enables the firearm must be unique. There must not be a method by which an aggressor can easily override an officer’s possible, firearm and make it useless. the problem is no longer If this is officers being killed with their own firearms, but ofllcers left with useless firearms leaving them helpless against armed criminals. Requirement: The technology must be such that even with full knowledge of how the system operates it cannot be easily defeated. Requirement: The technology used in a smart gun must have a unique characteristic that is not easily replicated, or jammed by an outside source. complex It could become the department’s repair them. so technically armorer could The technology might be not so advanced that service and repairs could not be done on site and would require factory service. If there is a problem, there needs to be a way that officers can easily use another firearm if theirs is in for repairs. Repair time should be short for any failures. Any auxiliary equipment associated with the smart gun must also be simple and easy to maintain, and the technology should also be upgradable as the next version of the technology is introduced. Once the system is set up the officer should need to do little to keep it operational. A once a day check of the recognition technology, and possibly a battery check is the most that seems practical for the average officer. There should be an equivalent method to a “tap-rack-bang” maneuver to check for and reset possible malfunctions quickly in the field. The existing maintenance and cleaning that is performed must not harm the smart technologies. 43 Many officers training issue. feel that maintenance is a. Officers can be trained to From the complete proper maintenance. interviews, an observation made is that those The first widely known “smart gun” was the Magna-Trigger Safety System, this invented in the early 1970s as a modified was Smith prior & Wesson .38 revolver that was enabled by a Although only a few magnet on a ring. military experience were the same that kept These their equipment well maintained. officers did not have concerns about normal departments had their firearms modified, the information that was spread around the law enforcement community, true or not, was that maintenance issues. the ring placement was critical. If the firearm was not gripped exactly right, it was said, the officers volunteering that they had Maintenance requirements Requirement: for smart gun technologies must be held to a level that the average officer will do. Requirement: The smart gun must be capable of repeated maintenance without damage or a decrease in performance. Requirement: Department’s armorer or trained personnel should be able to perform most diagnostic tests and repairs. Requirement: Simple procedures must be available to allow an officer in the field to. quickly reset the recognition system in case of a technical malfunction. Requirement: The technology should be upgradable when the next incremental version of the technology is introduced. Requirement: Proper documentation operational use must be supplied. for firearm would not operate. This first-of-its- kind product of 20 years ago still influences officer’s opinions about any type of smart gun technology. Officers have the same concerns about the external devices as the smart technology itself. The external devices must meet the same requirements as the technologies themselves. The external device must be reliable. It must operate in all possible officer may encounter. environments that an It also must be easy to carry. The majority of officers agreed with the survey question ‘I would be willing to wear something such as a ring, or wristband, that my gun would recognize’ as shown in Figure 23. The officers who do not like the idea say that their firearm should not depend on something wear. they would They do not want to have to depend on another device to operate their firearm, another thing that could go wrong. External Devices There are many methods by which a firearm could recognize an authorized user. Two of the possible categories are biometrics, and tags. Biometrics would include those technologies that recognize a characteristic of the person, tags would include those technologies that recognize something that the person carries. Officers have some concerns about the specifics of this second category: external” devices that the firearm would recognize. External devices could be any piece of equipment that was necessary in conjunction Possible with the operation of the firearm. examples are rings, wristbands, and buttons to be pushed. 44 The device would also be one more thing that they would have to carry or wear. For them to wear a device it has Some to be comfortable and unobtrusive, officers still do not wear soft body armor because of these complaints. It can not be affected by the weather, be broken in a physical altercation with an individual, or be affected by apparel such as gloves or long sleeves. Many officers had concerns that they might lose the device or just forget to wear it to work. Sometimes officers borrow equipment from others who are coming off duty when they forget to bring something to work. The device could also be stolen from them. 60% I 53% 50% . 1o% 1o% 8% 6% o% Strongly Oisagree Neither Agree Strongly Oisagree No Agree Response Response Figure 23. Suneyresponses to: Iwouldbe willing towearsomething such asaring, or wristband, that the firearm would recognize. In operation the external constraints. It must be safe to the user, it cannot cause medical device effects has many to the officers, such as the fears raised by radar guns or contain common items that cause allergic reactions. It must be simple because it has to External devices that could be easily identified as enabling devices concerned some officers. In some departments the officers are required work in stressfid situations. The officer must know where the device is, be able to obtain it to carry a firearm while off duty. There are also undercover agents that need to be able to go undetected as a police officer. If an external device is unique to a police officer it could blow their cover or just identifi them as an off quickly, and remember how to use it. duty oftlcer. If the device “ is a ring, it should not interfere with the officers grip on the firearm, or be easily snagged or caught on other objects such as fences, ropes or clothing. It cannot be so big as to cause sufllcient additional injury to a suspect in a physical alteration that it could be viewed as a weapon in itself. One officer said that he could not wear jewelry, and another An obvious device could give a felon an upper hand knowing that an officer is nearby while the ofllcer would not know there is a felon present. Most officers were not concerned about being known as police officers while off duty. There are two general devices. Those devices classes of that would external actively control the firearm and those devices that the mentioned that her hands swell and she cannot firearm would look for to identifj always wear her rings. Some ofllcers suggested that implanting something in their hand would example of an active control would be similar to a remote control firearm. A model of this be a lot more convenient, disgusted with the idea. technology has been seen by numerous people. With this technology the firearm can be although others were a user. An 45 enabled or disabled at the push of a button. As in their firearm because the release button was seen in Figure pressed by accident. 24, there are mixed feelings What officers like about about this concept. this concept is that their firearm is always ready to be used when they need it, and they have the choice when to disable it. The main concern is being able to get to the button to. disable the firearm when in a struggle for the firearm. Most agree that with proper training this would not be a concern in most of the situations where takeaways occur. where the officer is unconscious In scenarios it could cause a problem if the adversary knew where the button was located on the officer. This raises another concern, if the adversaries know where the officer’s disable buttons are located, then they may go around hitting officers in the common firearms. storage locations to disable their Of course the officer could re-enable the firearm. Unintentional button is also a concern. pressing of the Stories exist about officers walking around without any magazines Many officers are in the habit of frequently feeling that the magazine is filly engaged. An indicator would likely be needed to alleviate the concerns of officers that they disabled their firearm by unintentionally pressing the button. The other class of external devices is where the firearm looks for the device to identifi the user. Instead of identifying a characteristic of the officer, the firearm identifies a device that the officer carries. For this type of device there are a number of characteristics that must be considered. What type of device would the officer wear? Officers generally liked to have an option. If the device would be something like a ring they would like to be able to modi@ rings. Many liked the idea of a wrist band better than a ring. over their existing is an The range the device works The consideration. important 40% 36% 35% 30% 1o% 5% 0% Strongly Disagree Agree Neither Strongly Agree Disagree No Response Response Figure 24. Survey responses to: I would be ~illing to do something (like press a button on my uniform) to disable the firearm if it was taken from me. 46 . majority of all the scenarios have the officer and the suspect in very close proximity the ofllcer is shot. when If the device operates over too long of a distance it may operate even when the suspect has the firearm. This leads to the need for ring and wristband type identifiers, as opposed to body mounted devices that would have a range of at least the ofilcers arm length. Most of the incidents involve a struggle for the firearm. Ofilcers person, i.e., multiple wrists; implantable... fingers; fingers or Requirement: Ideally external devices can be attached to existing items, i.e., rings, watches, badges... Requirement: The operational range of any external device must be consistent with other requirements. may have to be retrained to let go of the firearm and remove their identifiers from the proximity that could make the firearm operable. Officers understood that Fail Armed they would have to wear two devices to be able to shoot with either hand. This did not effect An officer must be able to operate his firearm the opinions designs, are relatively easy to understand and Pistol users are correct misfire situations. could of the officers have a choice as long as they of things to wear. The at any time. Today’s firearms, having efficient identifier should also be a passive device not taught the “tap-rack-bang” needing a power source. common source, the associated An additional power maintenance conc&ns, and the size of the identifier device may be too great of a hindrance to officers. No matter how the external device may operate it must be such that it cannot be easily duplicated. Felons must not be able to simply The device recreate the identi~ing device. must be officer’s such that it can work firearms. alignment critical. with other The device must also not be In stressf~d situations, or situations where the officer’s hand has been injured, the officer can not be concerned with proper orientation of the device. Requirement: Ideally no external devices are needed to operate the smart gun technology. Requirement: Smart gun technologies not be alignment critical. must Requirement: Any external devices must be consistent with other smart gun technology durability, requirements, i.e., reliability, easy to maintain, small, accessible, simple... Requirement: Smart gun technologies and external devices should not cause medical side effects. Requirement: Any external device should have optional methods for attachment to the failures concern of officers simply to correct the most and quickly. One is what happens when the smart gun technology fails. Overwhelmingly, the officers desire a smart gun that will still fire if the smart technology fails. Their ideal is to err on the side of reliability and not security. The term officers often use is “fail-safe” meaning guaranteed not to “fail to fire.” the purposes of this project For we will use the term “fail armed” meaning if a failure occurs the device is left in an armed, ready to operate, condition. The last thing an officer wants is a useless firearm. The officers need to trust that the technology will not fail, but if it does fail they want the This means that if the firearm to operate. technology was somehow darnaged during a struggle, if it was not maintained properly, or if the batteries just ran out, they would rather have their firearm be able to be used by anyone and not just themselves. This is reasonable when you realize that statistically a police officer will fire his weapon in defense of himself or another, more often than he will be fired upon by his own weapon. A weapon that is functioning will more often help the officer than the adversary. Many different implementations of a fail armed Two optional ideas that feature are possible. were mentioned for use instead of a fail armed 47 system were a semi-permanent lock-out. In a semi-permanent disable or timed disable system, once the firearm was disabled it could not be easily reset in the field. This would leave the officer with the choice to manually disable his firearm knowing that it would remain useless until it could be reset. For the timed lock-out system the firearm would be disabled for a predetermined time if the officer chose to manually disable his firearm, The problem that could be caused by a fail Power Failure Smart gun technologies may either use active or passive technologies, meaning that they may or may not require separate power. Many of the potential smart gun technologies are active The most probable type of power devices. source would be the use of batteries. Officers have concerns about the reliability of battery operated devices. A battery is one more thing that could go wrong in a system. Many officers armed system is if a weakness is found that can * opinions are that batteries run down, need recharging, corrode, and are generally easily unreliable. disable Criminals may the smart learn gun technologies. the weaknesses of a certain model of smart gun: that by removing the batteries, or by rapping the firearm in a certain manner on the ground, the technology may become inoperable. Requirement: A smart gun technology for law enforcement officers should fail armed, such that the failure of the technology does not inhibit firing of the weapon. Requirement: A smart gun technology not be easily disabled by an adversary. must For a firearm that their life depends on, officers want to minimize the number of things that could go wrong. Other officers do not have a problem with batteries. They say they depend on their radios for their life more frequently than their firearms. They have instituted a maintenance program for their radio batteries, and the same could be done for their firearms. They have no problems Figure 25 shows single category that although of officers the greatest responding 35% 31% — — 22% — — — — + Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Neither Strongly Agree No Response Response Figure 25. Suwey responses to: It is acceptable to have batteries in firearms. 48 using rechargeable batteries that work fine. to the survey chose that they agree the statement ‘it is OK to have batteries in my gun’, a greater total majority disagree. Many of the officers dislike Two other concerns are as follows. One concern that is brought up when batteries are discussed is the bulkiness of the firearm. They batteries because of the bad experiences they have had with their battery powered equipment. fear that large batteries will increase the size Flashlights and tape recorders along with the concern of maximizing reliability, is the officers desire that if the biggest culprits of promoting seem to be the a bad reputation, although not all officers have problems. bad experiences come from Other and weight of their firearm. batteries fail, that the firearm not be rendered departments not useless. having batteries in supply when needed, and batteries fail. buying lower quality batteries in bulk to save money. These bad experiences along personality types of officers with the lead to a common Another concern, The firearm should fail armed if the Part of the engineering design of a smart gun system must include how to initially turn on the firearm when it is needed. Some technologies may allow power to be on continuously, others dislike for batteries. Many of%cers are notorious for not maintaining their equipment; will have to be turned on only when needed. This turn on feature may be as challenging as others other parts of the system. are extremely maintenance. equipment conscientious about Often the best maintainers are those with previous of military experience, both because of the regimented military maintenance programs and because of the fear of malfunctioning equipment. Batteries will have to prove themselves to officers to gain their confidence. Since maintenance is a key factor, departni;nts may have to enforce that batteries are checked and changed at regular intervals. Low power indicators may help promote proper maintenance. The indicator would have to meet the same requirements as in the indicator section of this report, Officers would rather not have to replace their batteries frequently. They would like to be able to change them in the field if necessary. Officers do not want to have to check their batteries more oflen than at the beginning of the shift. reserve capacity This means that the of the battery, assuming that Requirement: Ideally the smart gun technology would not require the use of batteries. Requirement: If batteries are used, they must be easily obtained, and factored into the cost of maintaining the equipment. Requirement: Ideally a battery used in a smart gun system would last longer than 1 year. Requirement: The minimum lifetime of a battery used in a smart gun system would allow an officer to fire 3 magazines, 10 hours after first indication of a low battery. Requirement: A low power indicator must be supplied if batteries are used in a smart gun system. Requirement: Batteries should replaceable, even in the field. be easily the low power indicator came on immediately after it was checked, should allow the officer to fire three magazines approximately 10 hours later. Three magazines is the maximum a typical officer carries on his person, and 10 hours later implies that the officer is working longer than an eight hour shift. Ideally the Requirement: not greatly characteristics weight... officer would only have to change batteries at closer to one year cycles. Officers suggest that redundant power supplies may alleviate many Officers many times have to make split second decisions. Their lives and the lives of others may depend on the outcome of that decision. The addition of smart gun technologies must officers concerns. Addition of batteries should change the physical of the firearm, i.e., size, Speed of Operation 49 . not increase the time of drawing when the decision and firing for using lethal force has been made. Officers are taught how to cover suspects: to be in a ready position with firearms out aimed at Requirement: The addition of smart gun technologies must not increase the time of drawing and firing when the decision for using lethal force has been made by any authorized user. the ground 4-6 feet in front of them, having the advantage of seeing and responding to the first threatening movement of an attacker. Experience has shown that officers can reliably hit an 8 inch circle at about 10 feet in .5 to .7 Drawing seconds from a ready position.31 from a holster adds some additional time. Officers smart are concerned gun technologies that the addition could affect Loss of Capability Firearms decades. operation. have not significantly changed for Officers are familiar with their Anything new is going to cause a concern about losing a capability from the old of the model. Officers capability do that they not want to lose now have with any their readiness of their firearm by increasing the time needed to draw the firearm from the holster. The smart gun needs to fit existing” firearms. The smart gun, compared to existing firearms, should not operate dramatically differently, should have the same performance, holsters. and should effectiveness. It needs to be able to clear the holster quickly. Access delayed. to their firearm cannot be Once the firearm is drawn, it must be ready to use. Whether on or off duty, quick use in an unexpected situation is primary to officer safety. The device cannot be so secure that it delays the intended use. Things that could slow an officer down are extra steps that would be required before use. Activation As not mentioned concerns, detract in the from the discussions the smart gun technologies as reliable as present firearms. officers of other must be Sacrifices cannot be made in the use of the weapon in imperfect circumstances. The smart gun must be as fast and accurate as current weapons. or deactivation may take too long, in either a normal or a takeaway scenario, if it is too complicated or must be done manually. Also, the exchange between officers should be Requirement: The smart gun, compared to existing firearms, should not cause a 10SS of capabilities. with a minimum delay. Another decision for the smart gun system designer is how to initially tell the firearm to look for the user, and whether to re-authorize the user between each round, This affects the power and speed that the technology can. operate. For instance, in the following scenario the firearm should not operate. A suspect has his hand on the firearm and the officer’s hand is on the suspect. The identification ring on the officer’s hand has enabled the firearm. When the officer removes his hand fi-om the suspect’s hand, and the suspect’s hand is still on the firearm, the firearm should become disabled. 50 Safety While many officers view a smart gun technology as another firearm safety it is better considered as a security feature. A safety is a device designed to prevent accidents from A security device prevents occurring. unauthorized use. A smart gun technology may add both safety and security to a firearm. Whatever it is called, firearm safety is on the mind of officers since they must carry their firearm with them each day. Every situation that an officer is involved in has a firearm Safety concerns in the present: their own. into two major survey can be broken The first category categories. basic rules of firearm includes safety and how relate to a smart gun technology. category includes the the and on the receiver they The second physical mechanisms in place within firearms today. A person themselves to be should Never anything permit comfortable your which you to hit. of an is the with the have been killed by other All of these rules should involve subconscious to cover unwilling to programming. technologies Even taught to The addition of smart should not affect these or other gun safety rules. firearm are sometimes Officers ofllcers firing at muzzle flashes. The second owners Unless weapon discharges. discharge Be sure of your target and its background. The target must be identified as appropriate destroy. This rule is often violated among new firearm users and contributes most to tragic unintentional discharges. New imagine that a powerful 3. muzzle are 4. never a!low theoretically unloaded firearm. 2. accidental to trigger. All firearms are loaded. This is a state of mind that should be used when handling firearms. tragic the contributor acceptable, the fingers should not be on the The basic rules of gun safety are27: 1. This is the second immediate safety until beginning shot. category safety mechanisms firearms of safety is the internal built into today’s that do not have firearms. a visible laser is aimed out external safety device have internal protections. the barrel that can never be turned off, such NIJ has standards that establish the minimum that anything it crosses is destroyed. performance Keep your finger outside the trigger guard standards for police revolvers32 The Sporting “combat and autoloading Arms and ready” pistols.33 Ammunition 35% Strongly Disagree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly No Agree Response Response Figure 26. Suwey responses to: A smart gun technology should replace existing firearm safety mechanisms. * 51 Institute, Inc. (SAAMI, pronounced “sammy”) also maintains voluntary Among other topics, these. standards.34 button, press enable button, and the gun fires. One method to help protect against this is not to pre-store energy or information needed to standards include activate the firearms locking mechanism. Manufacturer’s items dealing with safety. See the section on law enforcement standards for more details. As seen in Figure 26, officers disagree with the statement ‘the smart gun’s identification feature should replace my gun’s existing safety mechanisms’. Officers agreed that the addition of smart gun technologies should not interfere with, unduly complicate, or replace the existing safety mechanisms. fi.mctions should The manufacturer’s exist with the safety The addition of smart Requirement: technologies should not affect existing gun safety rules. Requirement: Smart gun technologies must law enforcement meet the existing standards. The addition of smart Requirement: technologies cannot act as a second trigger. additional enhancements of the smart gun technologies. A separate concern technology is that the can not in any way There should second trigger. manner in which the firearm can is by pulling the trigger. There smart gun operate as a be only one be fired, that should be no way that the addition of smart technologies cause can an weapon, unintentional discharge of the i.e., the sequence: cock, press disable” Acceptance By Officers One of the hardest requirements maybe to gain the acceptance of law enforcement officers. The majority of officers are interested in how smart gun technologies would work, and would like to try one. Figure 27, shows the response to ‘I think it would be valuable to have a gun that only fires for an authorized person, such as 4A%.. 45% 35% 0% Strongly Dks.agree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree Response Figure 27. Survey responses to: Smart gun technologies have value. 52 No Response law officer’. When asked, ‘If a smart gun was This is the concern of many officers available I would be interested in trying one’, comes even more ofilcers responded favorably. trainers are concerned is a difference Prior user in curiosity recognition There and acceptance. technologies using to smart depending training. more gun when it technologies. that officers on technology Police are already and less on This can cause over-reliance of the magnetic rings have not been accepted by law enforcement. One soft body armor manufacturer voluntarily included thousands of weapon’s safety mechanisms rather than retention skills in takeaway situations. Officers need to be trained so as not to have a false brochures sense of security, or become complacent. Trainers are having a difficult time convincing about the magnetic ring guns with their own material, but the concept still did not catch on. ofllcers that gizmos are not a substitute for safe Many officers have the “it can’t happen to me” attitude; many never of those seen the statistics same officers have on the number of officers killed with their own firearms. Educating officers about the need is one step in gaining this acceptance. recognize would Police that a problem not Industry offer knows gun that departments does exist or they retention a problem training. exists or security holsters would not be marketable. One pitfall of smart gun technologies who declare practices. It is possible that departments may also fall into the same trap and de-emphasize traditional firearms training. Requirement: The limitations of smart gun technologies must be made known so the technology is not declared the end all solution to the problem of weapon takeaways. are those that a smart gun is the total Retrofit solution before it is proven and accepted. Officers are concerned that smart guns may be The ideal situation for firearm owners less reliable than standard firearms and would they thus create more of a hazard to the officer than they would potentially counter. The smart gun installed in their existing firearm. Replying to the survey question, ‘I would want to be able to technology install the smart gun device in my existing gun’ manner. program, must operate in a predictable A proper test program, demonstration and field trials will be necessary to gain the confidence of the end user. could have a smart gun is that technology the majority of respondents agreed, as shown in Figure 28. Since many officers have to pay for their service weapon themselves this would save out of pocket expenses. This may also make the multitude of existing firearms able to Requirement: The smart gun technology must operate in a predictable manner. , be made more secure. There are concerns about retrofitting existing firearms with smart technologies. The main concern False Security As new inventions add conveniences to products, people start to rely on those conveniences. When the new invention adds security, opposed to convenience, the danger lies in people putting full reliance on the technology and not paying attention to other signals of danger. is whether the technologies could be Is there enough added to existing firearms. volume within the firearm, would it affect normal operation, could it adapt to all the different models? If a firearm was retrofitted, what happens to a manufacturer’s warrantee, who is liable for the changes that were made, how much would it cost, and who would do the installation? Could the firearm manufacturers be forced to retrofit existing firearms? These 53 are all questions that do not currently have complete answers. Retrofitting all existing firearms is a very Even job. Control and Infrastructure complicated, if not impossible within one manufacturer, the various models With the addition of smart guns, the addition of other equipment may be necessary. This are different to a point where one device may If modifications to older not fit them all. equipment weapons are made, it is difficult to know what. effect it would have on the normal operation of applicable for that technology). If multiple users are allowed to use a firearm then there the firearm since it was not initially designed to operate in the same fashion. For these reasons must be some way to program that firearm: to veri@ who is authorized, as well as add and the implementation of a smart gun technology may best be introduced into a new generation of firearms. would information stored be used within to the manage the firearm (if delete users. The enrollment process should be relatively quick and easy. This type of recoding equipment could be available for use at police departments, practice ranges, and even firearm dealers. Requirement: The ideal smart gun technology could be installed in existing firearms without reducing the existing firearms capabilities. The system can be imagined as a very basic computer that has a database with valid user The names and identification numbers. database system should be able to tell which officers are authorized to which firearms. 40% 37% 35% 30% 1 o% 5% o% Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree No Response Figure 28. Suwey responses to: A smart gun technology should be retrofitable. b 54 Protocols must be established interface and communication for a common this ancillary equipment and all brands of firearms. This will eliminate the possibility that each manufacturer develops a separate piece of equipment that only works with their . firearms so that departments would have to purchase multiple systems. Departments would have to establish standard operating procedures on how identification codes would be secured and managed. It would have to include who would be authorized to use a particular officer’s the department, spouse. The only firearm, i.e., everyone in his partner, or even a procedure would security of the identification include the numbers so that criminals could not obtain the information and more easily duplicate identification devices. included would be Also steps for reprogramming the appropriate firearms if an authorized officer loses an identifying device, and how often identi~ing numbers are chdged (if ever). Works Under Stress A situation where the use of lethal force may be necessary, whether during a weapon takeaway or not, is a stressfid situation for an officer. If the firearm becomes too complex, equipment Requirement: Recommendation procedures must be listed. needed of special To Make The Concept may be too much confusion during the “heat of the moment” if oftlcers are looking for a button mechanism instead of reacting to the situation. In a very high stress situation such that could make a smart gun meet needed requirements. This is a valid concern, and that of this project. In interviewing officers, many of those who had doubts were relieved when the goals of the project, the systematic approach being taken, and some of the technologies that could be applied were explained to them. The majority of the comments as a takeaway attempt, all but the most well trained ofilcers will tend to change from training techniques toward survival. Their physical responses will follow this trend. The officer may only movements. do be able to use gross body Expecting officers under stress to something using fine motor skills is may may change, the will to survive may take over. Requirement: A smart gun technology must operate within the capabilities of an officer in a highly stressful situation. Work A few officers responding to the survey had doubts about the ability to find technologies is part of the purpose or requires the ofilcer to do something complicated, the less likely an officer will use it effectively under stressfi.d conditions. They may forget how to work the device or there unacceptable. In these situations officers forget steps of operations, their voice Requirement: Ancillary must be identified. Ability Other Concerns scheme bedeen received in this area were attached with questions about how a smart gun would identi~ the user, and how it would be made reliable. Meet Law Enforcement Standards As this chapter has tried to make clear, law enforcement officers have a unique set of requirements for their firearms. Some officers are concerned that smart gun technologies would not meet these standards. To be acceptable, any technology that is introduced acceptable must meet current standards: reliability, performance, range of ammunition calibers, models, and meeting individual agency criteria. Some of these concerns stem from the original Magna-Trigger device that could oniy retrofit to one model of firearm. There are existing standards for firearms. NIJ has standards that establish the minimum 55 performance standards for “combat ready” and autoloading pistols.33 police revolvers32 The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer’s Institute, Inc. (SAAMI) maintains voluntary standards .34 In these standards, Information, Visual Requirements, items such Inspection, as also User Dimensional Functional Requirements, Firing Requirement, Drop Safety Requirement, Drop Hammer Safety Function Requirements, Requirement, to push a button, enter a code, word to deactivate or say a code the system. The system would have to be passive, in that when it is not in the officers hand it will not fire. The ideal Requirement: technology operates without officer. Drop Test, Jar-off Requirement are either revolvers Test, Exposed Hammer and Criticality of Test, smart gun action by the included as applicable to autoloading pistols. , or Detailed information standards themselves. can be found in the Summary information can be found in Appendix A. Override A few officers have suggested that they would like to see a manual override of the smart technology. Their real concern is the reliability of the device, and that if it fails they will be without their firearm. An override is possible, and it would let anyone use the device without This the smart technologies operating. Requirement: Smart gun technologies must meet existing applicable firearm standards. a secret. Gun Control A small number technologies of officers may control policies. be used override, depending on its implementation, could contradict the feature of not allowing a override the system. criminal to easily Whatever the override system, it cannot be kept fear smart gun to promote gun While this is out of the scope of this project it is worthwhile to separate the issues of who should be able to own a firearm, and who should be able to fire a firearm. A smart gun should simply limit who can operate the weapon, not own it. One former police internal affairs officer said that this type of “backdoor” Criminals would have a wide open If the to defeat the system. requirements for reliability of the smart gun technologies can be met, there is not a need for an override. If the smart gun fails enabled, then there is not a need for an override. If a system can be implemented which can only be overridden by the authorized user there is not a problem with an override, but this would have the same concerns as the technology itself. device may assist in the investigations of police o involved shootings by limiting investigations to Off Hand authorized individuals. The cases where an officer must fire with their Many off hand are statistically very few. Unconscious or Incapacitated Officer Some officers are concerned about the scenario where during a takeaway the officer is unconscious or incapacitated. Although this does occur, it is a small part of the officer deaths due to takeaways. Some officers would like to have the smart technologies operate even if the officer was incapable of doing anything. Therefore, there would be no ability 56 of%cers do not even know of a time when someone has had to fire with their off hand, outside of police academy training. Figure 29, in asking ‘a smart gun has to work with my offhand’ shows the majority of the officers still refer to the need to be able to shoot with either hand, just in case. There are documented cases where have had to fire with their off hand. officers Injuries often happen to an ofilcer’s shooting hand since it is their strong hand that is likely to be used to physically defend themselves. Officers will hold a baton or flashlight in their weak hand so that their strong hand is ready to draw their weapon if needed. Officers have already concerned about how they can use their firearm in an emergency or unexpected situation off duty. Many will carry a separate, smaller firearm off duty. Officers asked if a smart gun system would be too cumbersome to be practical for off duty use. They also wondered stated their concern about losing capabiliti&s in about wearing changing to a smart gun, shooting with either time. hand is one of those capabilities. an off duty officer improbable Trainers It is also not to be shot in the hand or arm. observe this trait in practice with video and picture systems when the officer confronted by an adversary When a person’s other’s firearm, is holding a gun. attention is placed on the shots will sometimes center around the gun instead of center of mass. an identi~ing device all the This could let felons know that they are identifi while there is no way to the felons. Most officers concerned with being recognized officer. were not as an off duty Requirement: Smart gun technologies should be capable of being used by an off duty officer. Requirement: A smart gun technology must be capable of ambidextrous one-handed operation. Proven Thorough Testing Before a smart gun technology is fielded it Many officers must be thoroughly tested. Off Duty Some police already departments require that officers carry a firearm while off-duty. Officers are have previous a bad feeling magnetic ring guns. because of It would take one mishap to lose officers the only trust in the . 69% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 27% 20% 10% 3% o% 1% Strongly Disagree Disagree o% . Agree Neither Strongly Agree No Response Response ● Figure 29. Survey responses to: A smart gun technology must operate with either hand. 57 . system. All malfimctions before field testing. must be eliminated A systematic test program must be used to cover all aspects of the design before actual use. Long issues must be understood. term performance Along with the normal testing that a firearm manufacturer does both in development and during production, smart technologies additional testing must be performed. of the It will be necessary for a standard to be produced to adequately inform consumers about possible sub-standard products. Gloves The question operate while of whether a firearm needs to the officer is wearing gloves continues to be an issue. While Figure 30, shows the ofllcers agree to the statement ‘A smart gun has to work if I am wearing gloves’ few concerns were along these lines. Firearm instructors say that officers are trained not to shoot while wearing gloves. With a glove the same sensation is not felt by the trigger finger and it is possible that unintentional firings may occur. Officers in the northern states insist that the firearm must operate while wearing gloves. Requirement: A systematic test program must be performed before actual field testing a smart gun technology which at a minimum includes studies of long term performance issues, and design failure. modes and effects analysis. They agree that they would rather not have their gloves on if they have to fire their weapon, but if they have to be outside on a winter night without gloves their hands may be so numb that they could not use the weapon anyway. A number of other types of officers also wear gloves on duty. Bicycle, motorcycle, and Officers prefer a passive device that would become disabled without the officer having to mounted police often wear gloves as part of their uniform for safety reasons. Also more and more officers are carrying some type of glove to be worn while frisking a suspect initiate any actions. officer is unconscious during an arrest. The common types of gloves that are worn by officers include thin leather Passive be the only Technologies For incidents when the or incapacitated this may manner of successful operation. This also may help the officer who is in a struggle for their firearm, so that they do not have to actively disable the device. question may be, for some types technologies, how to define the definition out of the officer’s hand. Proximity operate over a range of distances. suspect’s hand is on the officer’s The of of sensors latex gloves, or the newer kevlar Requirement: The smart gun technology must operate while wearing gloves typically worn by officers. If the firearm, and the officer’s hand is on the suspect’s hand, some proximity devices may still operate. This concern also infers that the fh-earm becomes, enabled as soon as the weapon enters the officer’s hand. Requirement: The smart gun technology should become enabled or disabled without action by the officer. Requirement: The smart gun technology should only be operational while in the officer’s hand. 58 gloves, gloves. Liability Legal concerns are everywhere. Law enforcement is not excluded from law suits of every type. Departments and officers are brought into court for reasons from using excessive force, to improper training and use of equipment. There are probably more unanswered questions in this area than any other at the current time. This is partly because until cases are tried there is not a precedent to 52% I 50% 29% * 11% 1o% 6Y. 2% o% Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Disagree Strongly Agree No Response Response Figure 30. Survey responses to: A smart gun technology must operate while the officer wears gloves. understand how varying incidents may be received in the courts. For smart gun technologies, some of the liability concerns include weapons warranty & liabilities if the device failed to operate, or issues involving the use of deadly force if an officer loses a smart gun. More possibilities exist in conjunction with retrofitting a firearm. The question exists of whether an officer’s Indicator An indicator can be any type of status monitor, For a smart gun application it could be a light or buzzer that tells that the firearm recognized the user, or that the battery is getting low. While most officers say that indicators necessary, others say that status monitoring are is a training and maintenance problem and no indicators should be used, The latter indicates smart gun in the hands of an assailant should be that the user must trust their firearm without considered relying on an indicator as a crutch. a deadly threat. One scenario could be that an officer loses his smart gun to a suspect who is now threatening the officer with it. A backup officer arrives and sees the suspect with a firearm aimed at the officer. The backup officer shoots and kills the suspect who, because of having the officers smart gun, may be interpreted as being unarmed. The appropriate legal bodies must clarifi liability aspects of smart gun technologies the law enforcement community. the to Because smart gun technologies are a new concept and not yet accepted, most officers want indicators that they can use to build confidence in the device. Figure 31, shows the sum of the responses from the two questions ‘An indicator is needed to show that the smart gun can identi~ me as an authorized user’, and ‘An indicator is needed to show if the gun is safe or enabled’. The fear that the device will not function reliably is too great not to have an indicator. Officers today frequently check to 59 35°h 30°A -. 10“/0 5% 1% o% Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree No Response Response Figure 31. Survey responses to: Is an indicator necessary? make sure that their magazines are engaged and that they have not inadvertently pressed the Buzzers and other noise making indicators are ● release button making their firearm inoperable. A simple test is needed that can be performed generally not liked. If they could be heard when needed by an officer in a noisy situation, then they could also be heard by a perpetrator when the officer was trying to be quiet. Some by the officer whenever desired to confirm the device is functioning properly without firing the weapon. This may be a feature whose liked the idea of something they could feel, whether a knob that sticks out or an internal importance thump or click, they would not have to look at officers firearm. will diminish gain as time passes and trust in the reliability of the the weapon to tell the status. A press to check indicator may allow independent monitoring without constant current drain to the batteries. The power indicator must be noticeable enough that it will not be overlooked, and be at a time Two types of monitors are normally mentioned. One indicates whether a user has been accepted as an authorized individual. The other is a low that the firearm will still operate for some period, as mentioned in other sections of the battery monitor to warn when batteries are about to fail. Officers would like to check their report. weapon when they first arrive on duty and then maybe on the way to a ‘hot’ call. Otherwise the firearm only needs to warn them if something is wrong. Officers say the indicators cannot be distracting. Fighter pilots are known to turn off distracting alarms in stressful situations. Officers have different suggestions on what is good and bad. Some suggest a light as part of the sights, others want to be able to see the indicator while the firearm is holstered. 60 ● The following are some possible drawbacks of indicators that should be avoided. One is causing the officer to look at the weapon instead of the situation at hand. Another is if the indicator would somehow delay the firing of the weapon. If the indicator fails to indicate the proper status is another problem. One final concern if an indicator is present may be the scenario where a suspect has obtained a smart ● gun. They could continue to try various tricks to make the smart gun technology operate and they would know if they had succeeded. This should not be a concern for a properly designed smart gun. Requirement: A simple test to confirm that the smart gun technology is functioning properly must be available. Requirement: An indicator cannot be distracting to the officer. 61 SECTION 3 THE EVALUATION OF SMART GUN TECHNOLOGIES 62 Chapter 4 6 The Evaluation A common concern technologies, Process with applying developed for a existing It is difilcult specific against an ofilcer’s requirements since these requirements often pertain to qualities of a purpose, to another application is that the wants and needs of the customer are forgotten or ignored in technology overcome an perform this attempt its concern, to make function. an approach smart to rank technologies gun. the requirements, To quantitative for needed. Instead a of less engineering directly these qualitative subjective list of requirements is The QFD starts with the customer’s ranking technologies was needed that allowed the ability to trace the technology’s ranking back to the law enforcement officer’s requirements referred to as the “whats”, meaning what the customer wants or needs. The QFD assists in the formation of requirements. requirements engineering requirements, referred to as the “hows”, meaning how the customer’s whats In this manner as either the or the importance of users’ requirements change, the affect can be seen in will be met. the rankings of the technologies. rating assigned. A quality fi.mction deployment ● was used as the basis for determining a more concise set of requirements, then this set was used for ranking each technology. Although a knowledgeable person’s intuition may ultimately give the same rank order, this approach allows the review and traceability of Each what has an importance This importance assigned from the information law enforcement officers rating was received from during the process of determining their requirements. A QFD matrix was built which provides a visual display of the interrelationships between the whats and the hews. Each interrelationship is assigned a weighting to the decision making process. identi@ if the technical how in any way has a Quality bearing on satisfying The weighting is A quality Function fimction Deployment deployment (QFD) is a discipline for planning and development of a product that focuses on the customer’s wants and needs. For this project, the QFD was used to assist in determining engineering Although requirements and importances. the customer’s what. multiplied by the importance rating for each relationship. These products are then summed for each engineering requirement, this gives a measure (importance weight) of how important the engineering requirement is to be able to meet the user’s requirements. numerous other methods could be used, this approach keeps the focus on the wants and It is normally recommended that the number of whats and hews be limited in number. needs of the law enforcement officer. ~is study limited the analysis to the first phase of This keeps the matrix to a manageable To thoroughly understand the QFD process, a matrix commonly called the House of Quality, that met the needs of the project. interrelationships between the customers’ requirements and the rankings of the technologies, the size of the matrix was not limited. A QFD matrix of over 8,000 relationships was built. size. the 63 The result of the QFD process was a list of engineering technology engineering Ranking requirements against which each Each could be ranked. requirement resulted in an The QFD process was followed by the ranking process. A separate matrix was formed to allow the list of engineering importance weight which gave a measure of its importance to the user. After the list of engineering requirements was formed requirements to be compared to each technology to be evaluated. The technical requirements are often stated as attributes, fi-om the user’s requirement, the list was arranged in logical groupings completeness. and Additional reviewed for requirements were process each engineering requirement, as appropriate, is assigned a target value. This value is a goal for a designer to meet for the particular requirement. The target specific and measurable. values must . be Many of information 64 a be precise requirement. times weight to This score was the requirement’s affect the score to the user’s requirements. These to subjectivity in each step of the process and that the ranking results could be affected. To are resolve this, information is provided with and without the importances included. is used to point out where trade- As a quick reference, may need to be made; such as number of users that can be use a firearm and the time it the list of users to identi~ the right one. For this project the correlation matrix was completed to a limited extent. having This to give a total score that could be used to rank designated to the extent that they positively or negatively affect one another. This off decisions between the authorized to takes to scan an item. process the technology. The ranking scores show the ability of a particular technology to meet the wants and needs of the law enforcement officer. It should be understood that there is engineering requirements with each other. This identifies complementary or conflicting relationships engineering multiplied according for this study were written The of ranking products were summed for each technology as attributes, or features, that the technology would either have or not have. A correlation matrix can then be built to compare the relationships. the importance assigned a direction for movement to indicate the requirements the presence Each technology was assigned a score indicating how well it could achieve the Each target value is the desired direction for the design. requiring allowed accomplished without implementation known. added as necessary to complete the set. As another step in the QFD Process the technologies are ranked against an abbreviated list of requirements as in popular consumer magazines. This allows the reader to quickly . achieve an overview compared to one requirements. of the technologies another and the Chapter 7 Engineering The requirements Requirements . listed in this section strive to build on the officers’ ideal requirements and transform them into attributes that a smart gun system would or would not contain. These requirements are referred to as engineering requirements because they are a refined set of the users’ requirements, and are closer to what a designer would need to account for the features a product would entail. Some of the requirements pertain directly to a technology while other pertain to the smart gun system as a whole, The requirements are not meant to dictate a certain technology or design, but merely to state the users’ ideal. It is still possible that officers would be willing to negotiate down from these idealistic requirements to simplifi them or to make them less conflicting. The requirements followed by a are brief listed in bold explanation. . text Also included is a target value that states a goal for the requirement to meet. Many of the requirements were written so that the target value was listed as pass/fail, this means that the feature is either possible or not. Listing many of the requirements targets as pass/fail simplified the ranking process because many of the technologies theoretically could meet the requirement but have not used that particular property in other applications. If a specific target value is listed then the preferred direction for the value is also listed in parenthesis. For example, the required whether the requirement was used prioritizing of the technologies. in the Some requirements do not lend themselves to be used without an actual product to analyze. Some readers may consider this lengthy section to be dry reading, but it will give the reader a deeper insight to the constraints placed on the technologies. SCOPE A smart gun technology system consists of an interdependent group of keys, discriminators, and latches integrated with a firearm. This requirement states the need for a smart gun system to be developed as a system made up of the three basic building blocks of the smart gun system analogy (the key, the discriminator, and the latch). Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No A smart gun technology system must have a unique identifier that can be associated with a user. This requirement states the need for a key. The specific requirements for a key are found below. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: Yes A smart gun technology system must have a means to discriminate between keys. This requirement states the need for a number of users is listed as ‘target value: 50 discriminator. The specific requirements for a (more)’ discriminator are below. means that 50 is the targeted number of users, and the target can be improved by For some offering more than 50 users. requirements a target value is difficult to specie. The rank-able value is to indicate Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: Yes 65 A smart gun technology system must have a mechanism to latch the firearm so that it cannot be fired. This requirement states the need for - very a This Users’ are “ requirement for constraints maintenance It is not desirable holsters for if they states not to need the goal a separate for a power . The ‘addition of the smart gun technology should not change the firearms balance so that the use of the firearm is affected. for the placement of the technology not to upset the balance of the firearm. The balance primarily effects the response of the weapon to being times, as increased and the scheduled need for an Rank-able: Yes devices. Target value: 2 cubic inches (less) Rank-able: Yes such indicator. A technology maybe powered in a number of ways: rechargeable batteries, batteries in magazines, portable chargers in holsters. Different approaches need to be considered. Target value: Electrical power not required. the use. The value of 2 cubic inches came from reviewing the size of common laser sighting 66 such as holsters, A power source, whether it is a or any other type, adds to the It also adds unreliability of the firearm. cause the officer difficulty in grasping the firearm, which could adversely affect weapon states the need the source. battery technology to be a small size. The firearm should not grow in size, becoming too large to carry and use. An increase in size can requirement for The technology used should not need an electrical power source. If a power source must be used it must meet the following power requirements. This The size that the smart gun technology adds to the firearm should be less than 2 cubic inches. This equipment, to have to change technology Target value: 3.5 ounces (less) Rank-able: Yes states the need states the need POWER sighting devices. requirement in change firearms. of the weapon. The value of 3.5 ounces came from reviewing the weight of common laser This change Target value: NA Rank-able: No must carry their equipment with them. A heavier firearm can adversely affect the officer’s use perceived could not be used. officers about Officers the weight not to affect the shape such that other existing This weight concerned too heavy. No requirement technology should include any additional weight that must be added to the firearm because of the firearms becoming satisfying The change in the firearm’s shape should not affect their use in existing holsters. The weight that the smart gun technology adds to the firearm should be less than 3.5 ounces. This requirement states the need for the technology. By Target value: balance. Rank-able: No CHARACTERISTICS to be lightweight. subjective. not be affected. Rank-able: Yes technology The balance, or feel, of the weapon is requirement the balance of the weapon should latching mechanism that will physically enable or disable the firearm. The specific requirements for a latch are below, Target value: Pass/fail PHYSICAL fired. The target value for the life of the power source is a replacement interval of greater than 12 months or 1000 recognition attempts by a user, whichever comes first. This requirement states the need for a power supply, if needed, to be of such long life that it is not a nuisance to an officer. If the battery can last long enough then the user does not have to be as concerned about having a dead battery when the firearm is needed. Since the life of the power source is dependent on both time and the number of uses, the user needs to determine how best to schedule a battery replacement. An annual scheduled time could be set to change the batteries for mostly unused firearms. A shorter scheduled time would be set for a well-used firearm. An indicator would still be necessary as a reminder, or to indicate a premature failure of A low power indicator must be available to indicate that the power source should be replaced. This requirement states the need for an indicator to warn an officer should be available to monitor the status of the battery. the battery. Target value: 12 months or 1000 recognition indicator attempts (longer time or more attempts) document. Rank-able: Yes Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No The power source must be of a standard size that can easily be obtained. of an impending need for replacement of the power supply, if used. Anytime a battery is used, an indicator The indicator requirements must meet the stated later in this supply, if needed, to be easily obtained and readily available. The user should not have At 10 hours after the low power indicator first alerts the need for power source replacement the firearm must be able to fire 3 full magazines. difficulty This requirement states the need for the low This requirement states the need for a power finding the proper battery for his firearm. power Target value: Standard size impending need for replacement of the power Rank-able: No supply. Sufficient time must be given so the user can obtain and replace the power supply at their convenience, and not during a critical time. Three magazines is typical of what an The replacement of the power source should be able to be accomplished with no special equipment in less than 20 seconds. This requirement states the need for a power supply, if needed, to be able to replaced without being a hindrance Battery replacement to the officer. is more convenient if no special tools are needed. The ease of battery replacement needs to be balanced against the requirements of failing armed and surviving certain environments. If the firearm’s smart features are disabled indicator to alert the officer of the These officer might carry on his belt. magazines should be able to be fired at the end of a shift, even if the warning indicator turned on at the beginning of a shifi. Target value: 3 fill magazines fired after 10 hours (more rounds or longer time) Rank-able: No The number of steps to test the life of the power source should be minimized. without power (such as could be the case for a fail armed firearm), this easy access could be This requirement states the need for a simple method to test the power supply life. a hazard, If criminals learn that they can fire the firearm if they remove the batteries, and it Observing a warning indicator is the simplest The ease of checking the method. only takes seconds to take the batteries out, then the officer has not been given enough protection from having their firearm taken and used against them. An easy access may also make the firearm more prone to certain environments involving moisture and dirt. requirements needs to be balanced with the indicator requirements. It is easy to simply look or touch an indicator, but that indication may also be noticed by an adversary. An indicator such as a press-to-test button would require an action to check, but could be done These at times acceptable to the officer. environments could degrade the reliability if brought in contact with a power source. Target value: less than 20 seconds (less) Rank-able: No Target value: One step (fewer) Rank-able: No 67 . sampling OPERATION The smart gun technology actions to require any deactivate. This requirement should activate not or states the need could for through the of between the users’ hand is automatically This . or be states the need reset automatically without opposed a to and special system that must enable for the re-enabled tools, as becomes disabled. during a struggle, it automatically turns off, if he regains control of the firearm it automatically turns on. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: Yes are typically taught the tap-rack-bang maneuver to reset a malfunctioning pistol. If The smart gun technology must be able to be activated by a single individual without assistance from others. This requirement states the need for the a smart gun technology would for some reason malfunction, there needs to be a simple procedure to reset the smart gun system and re-read the user’s characteristics. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No firearm to remain controlled by a single user with no help from others. A system must be controlled The system must detect when a new user is attempting to use the firearm. by a single individual, and not dependent on having more than one person present. A possible exception to this would be the implementation suggested in the Remote Control section of this report. In this implementation the command and control functions are directed by a higher authority. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: Yes the system to automatically recognize when a new user has gained possession of the firearm. The firearm should be able to detect a user picking up the firearm, or a transfer of possession from one user’s hand to another. This could be incorporated in a number of ways each having different problems to One method is continuous overcome. to permanently or semi-permanently If an officer loses his firearm Officer’s for requirement system This requirement states the need for a manual reset mechanism that restarts the mechanism states the need voluntarily gun technology The smart automatically be able to repeatedly and disable. Rank-able: Yes in case of any type of malfunction. either firearm Rank-able: No Target value: Zero actions The smart gun system must have a method to reinitialize the identifying sequence. the involuntarily. Target value: Pass/fail that the person that took the firearm does not know enough to disable the safety. 68 that system to become automatically disabled when the current user has given up possession resort, the firearm’s safety if they think that they will lose the weapon. Then they hope requirement a switch The system must detect and disable the firearm when an existing user has relinquished the firearm. This requirement states the need for the and it’s presence on the firearm. Then the officer only has to grip the firearm to enable it, or let go to disable it. Some police trainers will instruct their students to use, as a last This be that Another method ● may not have time or ability to turn the firearm off if someone is trying to take it The firearm needs to from them. current interactions characteristic Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No the task like turning on the firearm at the instant the firearm must be used. The officer also turn on and off, the user’s pressed when the firearm is held. device to be self actuating. The officer may not have the capabilities to do even a simple automatically of takes both time and power. . * The smart gun technology must be able to be operated with one hand. This requirement states the need for the reading of the user’s unique characteristic, to firearm not to require both hands for operation. A firearm must be able to be operated with one hand. Target value: Pass/fail Target value: .250 seconds (faster) Rank-able: Yes Rank-able: Yes The smart gun technology must be able to be operated with either hand. This requirement states the need for the firearm not to be limited to use by either hand. Circumstances or individual user preferences may necessitate the use of either hand for firing the weapon. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: Yes The smart gun technology must oper?te while the user wears gloves made of .063 inch thick leather, or .005 inch thick latex rubber. process that information, and then to latch or unlatch the firearm. The time for the smart gun technology to attempt to identify the user and disable the firearm must be less than .250 seconds. This requirement states the need for the firearm to become ofilcer firearm disabled has relinquished as soon possession either voluntarily as the of the or involuntarily. When the officer takes his hand off the firearm it should become disabled, either as the default state of the weapon or because there is not a valid user’s hand on the weapon. Care must be taken so that the firearm never becomes disabled while the firearm is in the user’s hand. Target value: .250 seconds (faster) Rank-able: Yes This requirement states the need for the firearm to operate with gloves that might be The smart gun technology must not be able to cause the firearm to fire in and of itself. used by an officer during duty. Officers sometimes have to wear gloves. The types of gloves that are worn vary. Some technologies This requirement states the need for the discriminator and the latching mechanisms to be cannot be operated through gloves. recognition these technologies method to overcome Either need to be ruled out, or a the problem found. For the typical optical fingerprint reader one option would be to have finger-less gloves. Other options may exist. Target value: .063 inches of leather, or .005 inches of latex rubber (thicker material) Rank-able: Yes separated of in such the user firearm to discharge. a way cannot that the cause the The recognition user cannot act as a secondary trigger. of a No matter what state the weapon is in, cocked or not, the weapon can only discharge if the trigger is pulled. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No The time for the smart gun technology to attempt to identi~ the user and enable the firearm must be less than .250 seconds. The smart gun technology must interface to the firearm in such a manner that the firearm will function if the technology becomes dysfunctional. This requirement states the need for ~he firearm to be ready to use before that the officer can fire the firearm. The time it takes for a system to enable the firearm is critical to This requirement states the need for the latching mechanism to operate in such a manner that if the discriminator does not give is not any signal (i.e., the technology the ofllcer. Normally the firearm is carried in a holster and there is a finite time that it takes to draw and aim the weapon. The time may be much shorter if the officer retrieves the firearm from an adversary’s hand. Some technologies take a long time to take a fimctioning) the firearm will still be able to be fired. This is the fail armed philosophy. It is much more likely that an officer will use his firearm in defense of himself or someone else, than to have his firearm taken and used against him. Officers have the desire that if 69 to it later. Often it is written on the card that it is meant to protect. This reveals that people the technology is not working the firearm will still operate. There are various approaches to do this. the weapon, recognize do not always remember numbers even under One is to have the firearm normally be enabled. benign circumstances. When the user attempts to use the firearm quickly the user. If the attempts to user Target value: Zero memorization is not Rank-able: Yes authorized, the firearm disables itself before All users must be enrolled before use. This requirement states that all users need to the user can pull the trigger. This would become a race between how fast a user can pull the trigger, before the firearm becomes disabled. Target value: Pass/fail be authorized before they can be recognized. This should be obvious because the firearm . Rank-able: No allow anyone Enrollment access before it can to firing the weapon. is discussed elsewhere in this report. The smart gun technology should only be enabled if the firearm is in an authorized user’s hand. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No Firearms are designed to be held in the user’s hand. If a firearm is not in the user’s hand it should not fire. Target value: Pass/fail The system should allow an untrained to be enrolled in less than 5 minutes. This requirement The smart gun technology should only be enabled if the key is within 6 inches of the discriminator. The distance, or reading range, between user states the need for quick and easy programming firearm’s memory. Rank-able: Yes of the user(s) in to the No matter how the enrollment process is handled, it needs to be simple for the user. This benefits in reducing user frustration by reducing the time each officer is waiting to program or update the users in his firearm. Target value: 5 minutes (Less) which the smart gun’s key and discriminator can communicate needs to be considered. It is important that the firearm is not enabled if there is too great a distance between the key The greater the and the discriminator. Rank-able: No The number of steps to test for authorized user should be minimized. reading range the greater the possibility of the user’s key being read in a circumstance that it must know who is authorized “ should not be read, because it has accidentally entered the reading range. Also there is an increased possibility for having other keys enter the reading range and having contention problems. Target value: 6 inches maximum (less) an This requirement states the need for a simple method for a user to veri~ that he is an authorized user of the firearm, without actually firing a round. There are many times that a person may want to check to veri@ that the firearm recognizes them; at the beginning of each shift, on the way to a call, and during an inspection are only a few. Target value: one step (fewer) Rank-able: No Rank-able: Yes The smart gun technology system should not require the use of a memorized task. KEY This requirement states the need that an officer under stress may not have the mental facilities, the time, or the opportunity to perform a memorized task. It is known that for items such as a personal identification number, a large percentage of the people write the number down so that they can refer The key must be unique to an individual a group. or This requirement states the need for a key to be exclusive to a user, or his group. This means that there must be a large number of different keys available for firearm users. 70 ● Being unique eliminates unauthorized the concern user appearing of an as authorized some scenarios for some technologies, where a master key arrangement may be preferable. because of a duplicate key. It is possible that Normally, groups of keys can be made identical, or have a similar feature so that multiple user codld easily each other’s firearms. If this is the case, it would be desirable that this feature two users using the same key. Duplication needs to be prevented at all levels: manufacturers must have controls so that duplicate keys are not made, police could be changed. departments may need controls to ensure that keys This is in case one of the is lost or stolen: reprogrammed the keys could be instead of replaced. ofllcers it would be inappropriate to have are not assigned duplicate keys, and officers need to not duplicate keys. Target value: 1 million (more) Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: Yes Rank-able: Yes The key must be stable and non-changing for a known period of time. The key should not be transferable, uniquely associated to a person. This requirement states the need for a key that This requirement states the need for a key to does not change it’s characteristics. If the key changes with time, then the discriminator be directly associated with a particular user and not transferable between users. Another may not recognize user has to be enrolled to operate the firearm, it the next time it is tried. Some systems, by using neural networks or and not just borrow a key. other means, can learn small changes infers time it operates. each This makes the system more complicated, but also makes the system more reliable. With frequent use small changes such as wear on a mechanical part, growth of a finger, or pitch change of a maturing voite, can be accounted for automatically. Target value: Pass/fail because that biometric are the best, to an individual. Any type of key that is transferable can be taken by, or given to, another user. This defeats the ideal of a user authorized firearm. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: Yes The key must discriminator. Rank-able: Yes This requirement keys they are unique but communicate with the The key must not be easily copied. This requirement states the need for the key This requirement states the need for a key to to the compatible in operation with the In the smart gun system discriminator. authorized or an unauthorized user. If all it takes is a photocopy of the key to duplicate it, analogy, the key must be able to pass on This information to the discriminator. then there is not enough security associated with the key. To have the necessary security, information includes the characteristics that make the key identifiable. Depending on the either the key not be able to be technology, truly unique), or it read by the discriminator’s that it would be a plan an active role in the reading process. not be easily duplicated should duplicated, should at all (being be so difficult either by deterrent to the majority of adversaries. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: Yes The key must be controlled in such a two users would that no manner inadvertently have like keys. This requirement states the need for a proc~ss at all levels that will prevent the concern of an unauthorized user appearing as authorized because of a duplicate key. There may be be the key may do nothing except be reader, or it may Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: Yes The key should not bean item that must be separately carried by the individual such as an external device. If an external device must be used it must meet the following requirements. This requirement states the need for the key not to be a separate item that could be lost or forgotten. The following requirements deal 71 * unique should not be transferable discriminator (as stated above) The keys. with the key as a carried item. Since the item iimction of the is to be able to read the unique characteristic of the key carried device must be capable if the device is characteristics as belonging carried. user. Target value: Pass/fail communicate Rank-able: Yes such a manner that the latching mechanism can lock or unlock the firearm. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: Yes these requirements elaborate on what a An external device must be able to be carried on at least two locations. This requirement states the need external device to be conveniently for an If a device must be carried it must Some officer’s have unobtrusive. aversions to wearing multiple locations then it may overcome with the latching mechanism the amount of information the “ in required to store each key’s characteristic. It is often the case for devices that use memories, that the available memory becomes a limiting item. Minimizing the memory required to store an individual user allows for more users being able to be enrolled in the firearm for a given amount Rank-able: Yes of memory, or allows amount of memory to be used. The size of the external device may vary carrying depending on the intended locations. This requirement to an authorized must also be able to This requirement states the need to minimize certain types of item while on duty, If the device can be carried in concerns of it being carried. Examples of this may be on either hand, on different fingers, on hand and wrist, on hand and torso, or on any combination of these. Target value: two locations (more) those The memory required by the discriminator to store a user’s unique characteristic should be minimized. carried by an officer. be The discriminator and veri~ the amount of memory a smaller Minimizing also reduces the cost of the entire system. Target value: 500 bytes per user (less) states the need for the size Rank-able: Yes of the external device to be so small that it is unobtrusive to the officer performing his duties. If the size is the carried item is too large then it could interfere with the normal The number of different users that should be able to operate a particular firearm should be greater than 50. day to day operations This requirement states the need for at least that the officer must perform. 50 officers to be able to be programmed Target value: .5 cubic inch (less) a single firearm. Enrollment by at least fifty users allows the majority of the departments within the United States to program all of their officers into each firearm. The number of users that can be programmed into a smart gun is limited by the amount of memory or unique mechanical features in the firearm. Target value: 50 (more) Rank-able: Yes Rank-able: Yes The external device must meet standards as smart gun technology. This requirement states the need same for the carried item to meet the same standards as the Not all the smart gun technology. requirements apply, but most do. The item must be reliable, work in all environments, The system should remember users until un-enrolled. have a long life, etc. DISCRIMINATOR The discriminator must be able to identify and differentiate between multiple keys. This reader 72 requirement to be able ● states the need to distinguish for the between into enrolled This requirement states the need for the firearm to retain authorized users in its memory until a user is removed from the data base. This is so that if power is removed from the firearm the memory is not erased. This prevents the need to reprogram all the how well the key’s authorized measured. users each time the batteries are This characteristics assists are being in being able to changed. compare Target value: Pass/fail technologies, especially for consistency and in different environments. It also assists in Rank-able: Yes The discriminator must be able to activate the latch. This requirement states the need for the discriminator and the latch to be compati~le For the smart gun system in operation. analogy to be complete the discriminator must be able to communicate with, or control, the latching mechanism. The extent of the communication necessary is whether firearm should be locked or unlocked. the Rank-able: Yes rate (FAR) should be This requirement states that the percentage of times that the firearm will inadvertently allow an unauthorized user to successfully operate the weapon should be less than 5V0 of the time. Current firearms do not limit the use of the ofilcer’s firearm at all. Since an officer is much more likely to fire the firearm in defense of himself or another person than to have it used against him, and because maintenance when to evaluating allow different readings compared to a baseline. to be This feature would only have to be available in a testing configuration. One possible implementation is to have this feature only available to be read by an external enrollment machine. allows a quick discriminator that and simple could be test This of done the at the convenience of the user. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No Target value: Pass/fail The false acceptance less than 5’?40. scores the FAR and FRR are related, the limit for F~R was set at 5V0. Ideally this number would be o%. Target value: 5% (less) Rank-able: Yes The false rejection rate (F’RR) should be O%. This requirement states that the firearm should never limit an authorized user from The successfully operating the weapon. system must never falsely reject an authorized user. Target value: O % Rank-able: Yes The recognition score and the threshold value that is used to determine if a recognition is valid should be available in a test configuration. This requirement states the need for the discriminator to have a means of measuring The smart gun technology must be able to perform the identification of the user without regard to the alignment of the key. This requirement discriminator states the need for a to be able to read the key in multiple orientations and positions. The key during normal operation should be placed in Under approximately the same position. actual use conditions there could be some displacement or rotation. The discriminator must be able to read the key’s characteristics if the normal alignment is not present. means that the discriminator of accounting for This must be capable the misalignment distinguishes the characteristics. as it This makes the discriminator more complicated. Target value: Displacement = *% (greater), Orientation = kl 80°. Rank-able: Yes inch The discriminator must not require special movement for the key to be read. This requirement states the need for the discriminator to be able to not require the key to perform a special movement to be read. For many technologies it is critical that the key remain stationary for the discriminator to obtain a reading of key’s characteristics. For other technologies the discriminator requires that the key be moving past the reader to obtain a reading. An officer using a firearm cannot be required to unnaturally hold the key . 73 action of the weapon until such a time that an trigger pull level during normal use by the authorized user. This requirement states the need for the latching mechanism not to. interfere with the existing standards for trigger pull level when an authorized user is firing the firearm. When an unauthorized user is attempting to use the system the trigger pull may change either to a locked condition (infinite force needed) or unattached (zero force needed). This would be determined by the implementation of the latch, and the preference of the manufacturer. Target value: Existing NIJ standards authorized Rank-able: No stationary or perform a special movement when he is ready to fire his weapon. . Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: Yes LATCH The latch must be able to lock or unlock the firing state of the firearm. This requirement states the need for the latching mechanism to control the state of the firearm. The firearm can be either locked or unlocked. The latching mechanism is the physical device that is able to block the firing user is recognized discriminator. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No by the The material strength of the latch must withstand the stresses of both normal and credible abnormal circumstances. ,. The latch should be matched to the characteristics of an individual firearm. This requirement states the need for the latching mechanism to be strong enough not This requirement states the need for latch and to be overcome the dropping or increased trigger pull forces. firearm compatible. system to be operationally Each firearm made by different manufacturers contains different pieces. pieces “ The smart gun system must not be compromised Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: It should be lefl up to manufactures how best to implement the latching mechanism into each particular model. Since there are many possible the manufacturers can implementations, decide threats such as by a broken latching mechanism. The may or may not be similar between manufacturers and models. by common INDICATORS A feedback indicator should be present to show whether the firearm (the latch, not the discriminator) is enabled or disabled. what is in the best interest of their customers, and their company. This Target value: NA officer to have a means of knowing the actual Rank-able: No state of the firearms firing mechanism. The indicator must show the present state of the latching mechanism not the discriminator. The discriminator makes a decision on whether the firearm should be enabled and communicates that information to the latching mechanism. It is possible that the latch did not receive the communication or it failed to The latch is activated by the discriminator. This requirement states the need for the latch to be operationally compatible with the For the smart gun system discriminator. analogy to be complete the mechanism must in communication The extent discriminator. latching with the of the communication necessary is whether firearm should be locked or unlocked. Target value: NA Rank-able: No the latching The implementation of a mechanism to lock the firearm for an unauthorized user should not affect the 74 . requirement states the need for the respond. In this case if the discriminator was the sole indicator, the wrong indication would be present. If the indication comes directly from the mechanism that performs the enabling, then the actual state of the firearm is known. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No ● Any indication should be obtained with minimal actions from the user. This requirement states the need for the officer to be able to know the actual state of the firearms firing mechanism with a minimum of actions. The officer should be able to check the state of his gun at anytime without interfering with his duties. The simple acts of looking at a light, listening to a sound, or feeling a protrusion are considered actions. Target value: one action (fewer) Rank-able: No Any indicator should not distract the user’s attention from their duties. This requirement states the need for an indicator not to distract the officer from performing normal duties. Items such as lights, or sounds could distract the officer in certain circumstances. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No Any indicator should not be easily noticed by others. This requirement states the need for an indicator not to reveal the officer to other individuals. Items such as lights, or sounds could jeopardize the officer in certain circumstances. Target value: NA Rank-able: No Instructions of proper use must be available. This requirement states the need for proper training, instructions, and cautions to be available for operation and maintenance of a smart gun technology firearm system. Even should not complicate the use of the firearm, officers need to be trained in the proper use and maintenance of all of their equipment. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No The number of special procedures should be minimized. This requirement states the need to minimize any special operations or processes that This includes accompany the firearm. anything that the officer would not currently have to be concerned with in using his firearm. If there are any special controls, limitations, or procedures they should be listed. that are needed Departments must be concerned with items like lost firearms, lost firearm keys, trading of firearm keys, authorizing non-police on an officer’s firearm, re-keying, and other possible issues. DOCUMENTATION though the smart gun technology The amount of specialized ancillary equipment should be minimized. This requirement states the need to minimize any additional pieces of equipment that must be used in conjunction with the smart gun technology firearm system. This includes any type of item that the oflicer may have to carry besides his firearm (i.e., a ring or controller), and any items that a department may need to operate, or maintain, the firearms, Although the number should be minimized, it may be to the ofilcer’s or the department’s benefit to have certain types of ancillary equipment. One such item is a separate external enrollment machine instead of having each firearm having programming capabilities (as previously discussed). Target value: zero Rank-able: Yes Target value: zero Rank-able: Yes SAFETY The smart gun contain material carcinogens. technology should not that contains known states the long term This requirement exposure to the materials used in the construction of a smart gun system should not cause ill effects to the user. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No 75 any firearm. The smart gun technology should not emit known harmful emissions. This requirement states the need for the smart gun system not to emit any type of substance or energy that would be harmful to the user. possible Target value: Pass/fail being Rank-able: Yes defeated. Meeting this extreme may be a difficult requirement, unless designed into a product from the start. If the smart gun technology is integral to the firearm it maybe to make the firearm fired if the smart incapable gun portion of is Target value: 1 minute (longer) OTHER STANDARDS v The smart gun technology system must meet the existing applicable NIJ standards. This requirement states the need for the smart gun system to meet or exceed any existing standards set forth by NIJ for firearms. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No The smart gun technology system must applicable SAMMI meet the existing standards. This requirement states the need for the smart gun system to meet or exceed any existing standards set forth by SAMMI for firearms. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No ADVERSARIAL STRENGTH The time for an adversary to defeat the smart gun technology system after being , taken from an officer should be greater than 1 minute. This requirement states the need for the smart gun system to be time consuming to defeat by an unauthorized person so that the authorized user has time to pursue other options. Time is critical when there is a firearm takeaway. If an officer is given even one minute they have been given an enormous opportunity. Now they are not hindered by the possibility that the firearm that was taken from them could be used against them. They can use the time to regain control of the adversary, or to get assistance, or to run: what ever is the appropriate choice. Longer times benefit the officer in offering even more opportunities. Taken to the extreme, if it takes so long for an adversary to defeat the protection a smart gun system offers, then there will be no use for adversaries to take officer’s firearms. This would also eliminate the reasons for stealing * 76 Rank-able: Yes The smart gun technology system should not be defeated with toois readily available. This requirement states the need for the smart gun system to be difficult to defeat by any means that an unauthorized person could reasonably employ at the scene of a takeaway attempt. Since takeaways are not typically planned events, special tools are not available. Common items such as knives, keys and hairpins could be available. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: Yes An adversary must not be able to overcome the smart gun technology system in a manner that would make the firearm nonfunctional to the user. It is important that an officer always be able to use his firearm. There cannot be a manner in which the smart gun technology can be overcome and thereby “jam” the firearm. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: Yes TRAINING The training on normal operation of a smart gun technology system should be less than 1 hour. This requirement states the need for the smart gun system to be easy to learn and operate. Training for police is expensive because it takes officers off of duty. Once initial training is conducted no firther special training should be required. Training may the manual, and consist of reading demonstrating a working knowledge of the firearm. Target value: 1 hour (less) Rank-able: No Specialized training on smart gun technology system covering topics such as diagnostics and repair should be less than 4 hours. This requirement states the need for specialized training to be given to appropriate people such as trainers and armorers. This additional training would cover topics in more depth such as technical operation, repair, and replacement of parts. Target value: 4 hours (less) Rank-able: No The smart gun technology system should be made up of modular parts. This requirement states the need for the smart gun system design to be simple to repair, replace, and upgrade. Modular parts could make the task of repair capable of being be nearly anyone. They may also assist in making the technology firearm making This requirement states the need for features to make it more integral to t.e difficult for an maintenance and troubleshooting simple by a trained person. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No The required routine maintenance smart gun technology system require less than 1 hour per year. of the should This requirement states the need for the smart gun system to be maintenance should MAINTENANCE completed The smart gun technology system should have diagnostic test signals available. include enrollment free. all the cumulative This times of replacement of batteries, and any other actions. Target value: 1 hour per year (less) Rank-able: No The routine maintenance of a smart gun technology system must be simple enough to be performed by an untrained user. This requirement states the need routine maintenance adversary to defeat the mechanism. training. to not require for the special Target value: Pass/fail Target value: NA Rank-able: No Rank-able: No The smart gun technology system should be tested with normal electrical bench-top equipment. This requirement states the need for diagnostics to be able to be performed without the use of highly specialized equipment. Equipment should be able to measure voltages, resistances, and possibly interface with a computer through serial communication channels. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No Routine maintenance of a smart gun technology system must not degrade the system performance. This requirement states the need for the smart Modular parts should have features for easy alignment during assembly, testing, and replacement. This requirement states the need for &e pieces of the smart gun system to be easily This simplifies the product assembled. assembly, and makes repairs able to be done by people without extensive training. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No gun system not to degrade due to normal maintenance. Target value: 1000 times a year (more) Rank-able: No INTERFACE The mechanical layout of the smart gun technology system should be standardized for potential upgrade capabilities. This requirement states the need for manufacturers to plan the firearm mechanical incremental such that as systems improvements become available they can be easily upgraded by a qualified user into the firearm. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No 77 The total miscellaneous cost associated with a smart gun technology system should cost less than $5 per year. This requirement states the need for the miscellaneous costs of a smart gun system to be affordable. Target value: Less than $5 Rank-able: No The electrical interface of the smart gun technology system should be standardized for potential upgrade capabilities. This requirement states the need for manufacturers to plan the firearm electrical systems such that as incremental improvements become available they can be easily upgraded by a qualified user into the firearm. TESTING Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No The information protocol of the smart gun technology system should be standardized for potential upgrade capabilities, and compatibility between different brands of firearms. This requirement information single key states the need for 0 an protocol that would allow a to be used on firearms from The smart gun technology system must be trial field tested in actual use conditions. This requirement states the need for testing in an actual use environment before the product is openly marketed. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No different manufacturers. This prevents users with multiple firearms from obtaining separate keys that work only on specific This also models or brands of firearms. allows for the consistency of readers to be maintained so that whatever discriminator reads a key the same result is obtained. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No COST The incremental cost of a smart gun technology system should be less than $60. This requirement states the need for the additional cost that a smart gun technology would add to a firearm must be affordable. Target value: $60 (less) Rank-able: Yes The total cost of maintaining a smart gun technology system should cost less than $5 per year. This requirement * The smart gun technology system must be analyzed for failure modes and the effects of failures before fielding the system. This requirement states the need for extensive study of the various ways a system could fail and what the effects of those failures would be, before a product is marketed. These results must be made aware to the officers so that an informed decision can be made about using the firearm. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No RELIABLILTY states the need for the yearly costs associated with a smart gun system to be affordable. This includes the costs that a department incurs for using smart guns. Target value: $5 per firearm (less) Rank-able: No 78 All requirements must be sufficiently tested. This requirement states the need for rigorous testing of smart gun systems, preferable to a standard. A self test could even be built into the firearm to perform a self analysis of its internal workings. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: No The smart gun technology system should be able to enable or disable the firearm after identifying the user with a reliability of 99.9%0. This requirement states the need for the smart gun technology to be reliable. One method of achieving this high reliability would be to implement two independent systems within the fwearrn, so that if either operates firearm will discharge. the Target value: 99.9V0 (greater) Rank-able: Yes SERVICE LIFE The lifetime of a smart gun technolo’~ must be at least 10,000 live rounds, and 100,000 enable/disable operations. This requirement states the need for the smart gun technology to be able to fimction throughout the lifetime of the firearm: both live firings and checldesting fimctioning. Target value: 10,000 live rounds (more), and 100,000 enable/disable operations (more) Rank-able: Yes ENVIRONMENTS The smart gun technology system must operate independently of the amount of ambient light. This requirement states the need for the technology to operate in all types of light conditions, not being dependent on the external light. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: Yes ● The smart gun technology system should operate after submersion in water. This requirement states the need for the technology to be water proof. Target value: 2 hr. (longer) at 2 atm. (deeper) Rank-able: Yes The smart gun technology system should operate at temperatures up to 160 degrees F. This requirement states the need for the smart gun technology to operate in extremely hot environments. Target value: up to 160 degrees F. (hotter) Rank-able: Yes The smart gun technology system should operate down to -50 degrees F. This requirement states the need for the smart gun technology to operate in extremely cold . environments. Target value: down to -50 degrees F (colder) Rank-able: Yes The smart gun technology system must operate after a drop of 4 feet on to a hard steel plate in any orientation. This requirement states the need for the smart gun technology to survive the type of shock environment that could be expected in normal use. Target value: 4 feet (higher) Rank-able: Yes The smart gun technology system should operate after vibration. This requirement states the need for the smart gun technology to survive the vibration that could be expected in normal use. Target value: 6 ghns. for 30 minutes in any orientation Rank-able: Yes The smart gun technology system should operate after exposure to chemicals commonly used in or around firearms. This requirement states the need for the smart gun technology to survive exposure to chemicals that might be used in or around firearm. These include items like cleaning fluids and oils. Target value: Pass/fail Rank-able: Yes The smart gun technology system must operate during and after acoustical noise environments up to 130 dB. This requirement states the need for the smart gun technology to operate in all types of noise environments, not being dependent on the external noise level. Target value: 130 dB (louder) Rank-able: Yes The smart gun technology system should operate after exposure to a salt fog environment. This requirement states the need for the smart gun to operate after exposure to an atmosphere that could be expected during a lifetime of use. Target value: 10 days (longer) Rank-able: Yes 79 . The smart gun technology system should operate after ice has been applied and removed. This requirement states the need for the smart gun to operate after exposure to an atmosphere that could be expected during a lifetime of use. Target value: 1/4 inch (thicker) Rank-able: Yes The smart gun technology system should operate after exposure to sand and dust. This requirement states the need for the smart gun to operate after exposure atmosphere that could be expected to an during a lifetime of use. Target value: 96 hours (longer) Rank-able: Yes The smart gun technology system should operate after exposure to mud. This requirement states the need for the smart gun to operate after exposure to an atmosphere that could be expected during a lifetime of use. Target value: 96 hours (longer) Rank-able: Yes The smart gun technology system should operate after an exposure to a surf environment. This requirement states the need for the smart gun to operate after exposure to an atmosphere that could be expected during a lifetime of use. Target value: 96 hours (longer) Rank-able: Yes 80 The smart gun technology system should operate after exposure to solar energy. This requirement states the need for the smart gun to operate after exposure to an atmosphere that could be expected during a lifetime of use. Target value: Ten 24 hours cycles (longer) Rank-able: Yes 4 The smart gun technology system must operate during and after exposure to radio frequency interference. This requirement states the need for the smart gun to operate after exposure to an atmosphere that could be expected during a lifetime of use. 85 dBm = 100 MHz Target value: 130 dBm > 100 MHz Rank-able: Yes Chapter 8 Automatic ID Technologies Auto ID is the abbreviated for can be read by radio waves. The devices are Automatic Identification. Auto ID and its related field Automatic Data Collect~on (ADC) generally describe the automatic designed to be reusable and can be read whenever the tag is in the proximity of the specifically designed reader. Some tags contain pre-stored information that can only collection of information terminology or data about an object. Automatic ID includes those technologies that electronically detect and be read, while measure a unique characteristic could be used as the key while the firearm would be the information reader and ADC includes any technology used to directly of an item. that can be input data into a computer system without the intervention of a human. The reason these technologies are used so often in manufacturing industries is they eliminate the collection and entry of the data, both which can be very time consuming and error prone. Each can read and write to discriminator. Examples of existing uses Most RFID tags are used in the process has its own and disadvantages. specific This makes “smart”, so that they store all the necessary information pallet. regarding the product than bar codes, have replaced the bar code because Radio Frequency with each other, Identification b Description transponders since have World been War used II for when aircraft used the identifi friend or foe system. The transponder, or tag, would receive a radiated signal and then reply with another Radio Frequency Identification signal. (RFID) tags. are a classification of devices which includes devices like those attached to items in a store that will detect shoplifters by item alarm if the setting off an Although inappropriately leaves the store. those are very basic forms of a tag, more sophisticated tags operate similarly. Tags typically use an integrated data memory that on the Even though they are more expensive used in conjunction identification of Identification. The most common application for an RFID tag is inventory control, such as identi@ing pallets moving in a factory. By different technologies suited for different applications. Sometimes the technologies are Radio the tag using read/write tags, the pallets can become technology advantages you others. In a smart gun application in many applications tags of their read/write and reuse capabilities. Read/write tags can be read and written to by the same device, so information can be updated each time the tag is read. Companies longer reading distances strive for and faster reading times to meet the changing needs for the items being tracked. Some current applications for RFID tags are: automatic toll accounting for driving cars through toll booths; livestock, pet and zoo animal inventory; theft protection; and ski resort tickets to reduce unauthorized analyze slope traffic patterns. use and What is measured The RFID tag contains information. The information is transmitted by radio waves from the tag to the reader. This information 81 * may be stored in different forms within the from the radio frequency tag, but will normally considered a passive tag. Passive tags can be digital signal waves. from from into a energy then it is radio smaller and lighter because they do not need a may be transmitted battery, but they must contain memory that is that is transmitted The information ranges be converted by near contact to several The reader then takes . not erased when power is removed. Passive tags are very reliable and have a very long yards away. appropriate action based on the information received. life since there are no active parts, or batteries that can wear out. Passive tags place more power burden on the reader, because the How it works The typical RFID system consists of three reader must radiate power to the tag. Since the transmitted power diminishes quickly pieces: the tag, the reader, and antennas. with distance, the shorter reading range of a The antennas are the elements that are used smart gun application for transmitting and receiving radio fi-equency battery energy. Both the tag and the reader must life possible. could make sustained Tags are relatively The size and orientation independent at short distances. The change in orientation effects the amount shape of the antennas will vary depending on the application and the specific requirements of energy received which effects the reading range. of the system. The system configuration will dictate whether the antennas will transmit, The reader is the brains of the RFID system. contain some sort of antenna. The reader contains both an antenna and a decoder. The reader’s receiver must meet the receive or do both. When the tag’s antenna is within the reading range of the reader’s antenna the data transmission Typically there may are dead-spots requirements for high sensitivity, occur. within an antennas reading range. RFID readers usually depend on the tag traveling through the reading range to ensure that a proper read can be made. Dead-spots would be a concern in a firearm application, constantly fi-om the tag it decodes the transmission using ● special integrated hardware or software. The reader then performs its specifically designed fimction for the application, such as disabling because the tag may not be moving with respect selectivity, and resistance to electromagnetic interference (EMI). After the reader receives the data a firearm. to the For a passive tag system, the antennas. reader’s antenna will transmit radio frequency The energy and then wait for a response. The tag is a transponder that contains the unique information that can be read by special purpose readers. Some tags are read reader has to transmit sufficient energy to the passive tag’s antenna to achieve the desired For an active tag the reading distance. only: they are manufactured with pre-stored information that cannot be changed. Other tags, referred to as readhrite, contain some reader’s antenna only receives transmissions. type of alterable reprogrammed by memory the that reader. categorize frequency can be Another distinguishing characteristic of the tag is if the tag needs a power source. If the tag has its own power source and does not require an external control stimulus it is considered an active tag. Active tags are employed when a longer reading range is desired, or when data memories are used that require continuous power to retain their data. If the tag is able to operate on the power that the antenna receives 82 Modulated backscatter is a term used to passive tags that change the radio signal that the reader receives. Backscatter refers to the deflection of radio frequency energy back to the reader from any ● surface. For RF/ID to work, the tag must be able to change, or modulate, the signal in a way that the reader understands. The signal’s frequency, amplitude, phase, or information may change. Power is a major constraint in determining how the signal can be changed. Since all the power that is available to the passive tag is received through its antenna, . only a limited amount is available for changing and re-transmitting the signal. This also limits the distance that the signal can be retransmitted. Another constraint is the required speed of the system. This determines the time that is allowed for modulation of the signal. The tags clothing whose commonly found attached and video tapes are reflective input frequency to tags, is simply divided in half. Frequency division is a method that was developed for use in retail electronic article surveillance. Because the system is looking for a single, specific low radio frequency, it is the frequency range of the system that should be selected by the needs of the specific application. The frequency must allow reliable reading of the information. For a firearm application it means having no deadspots within the reading frequency and power used range. The determines the type of FCC regulations that apply. FCC regulations the from may protect outside interference, manufacturers system but also may hinder the in obtaining proper authorizations for their products. The final performance measure to be able to eliminate: false alarms; de-tuning by weather, body fluids, or metal; failed discussed is the modulation technique used in the system. The techniques vary depending on how a digital “one” and “zero” are detections. represented More complicated semiconductor transmit frequency. the memory systems use a in the information The performance tag, using and radio of these systems is dictated by various factors: the amount of memory contained in the tags; the speed of data transfer; the operating frequency; the operating technique used to transfer data. range; the modulation The amount of memory available varies from around 20 bits in the read only tags to 32kbytes in read/write tags. A 20 bit memory can uniquely distinguish over 1 million tags. The advantage of more memory is that more information about the object can be stored if this is necessary, but this comes at the price of speed, frequency, and computing power. To read larger amounts of information a longer time or a higher frequency is required, and the processing power must be increased to handle the amount of data in the given time window. Reading rates up to 3,000 bytes per second are advertised by manufacturers. The range for reading the information is another performance factor that is configured for a particular system. Factors such as transmission configuration, antenna frequency, and power control the reading range. Range for the presently available systems varies from less than one inch to many yards. An important consideration is in an analog radio frequency signal passing between the antenna and the tag. Different techniques will each have their strengths and weaknesses in areas such as reliability, signal selectivity, and interference immunity. With any schemes the reader should implement error checking features to ensure that proper information was read. Possible implementations of the technology An RF/ID system could be implemented in a firearm as a smart gun technology by using the tag as the key and the firearm as the reader. There are many possible variations to each part of the described system. It will be attempted to give sufficient illustration to make the strengths and weaknesses of other variations apparent to the reader. Each officer would be assigned a tag that has a unique code. The firearm acts as the reader. When the firearm is in the hand of the user, the firearm would transmit low power radio frequency from an antenna built into the firearm. If the passive RF/ID tag was within the reading range it would be powered from and transmit the stored this energy information back to the firearm. The firearm receives the information from the tag and discriminates it. If the tag is one that was preprogrammed into the firearm as an authorized user the firearm would enable the The firearm can be firing mechanism. 83 programmed to accept numerous codes so trying to read a single that multiple users can be enabled on a single overcome firearm. when The tag would some manner. be carried by the officer in A likely location would be as part of a ring or wristband. Because of the small physical size of tags, it may be possible for a tag to be made part of, or able to connect to, existing jewelry. Although it is possible to attach the tag to other locations on the officer, the tag must be in a location so that if the firearm was taken from the user it would not still be in the reading range of the tag. This tag. This can be by having readers not interrogate another reader is interrogating. made which use Systems are now being multiple frequency scanning to sequentially read multiple tags in the same location. Currently different manufacturers’ tags are not compatible with each other. Each company has proprietary protocols used for reading their tags. This is referred to as a closed rules. system: each company sets its own The advantages to this method of operation are that each system has high requires the reading range to be minimized to security in that only a certain type of tag will ensure that the firearm is no longer operable. For some existing commercial applications, hermetically sealed tags are implanted communicate properly with the system, and each vendor can control the serial numbers of their tags to keep them unique, with no underneath the skin of animals. Implantation in the user’s hand could be a possible implementation. Many factors such as federal approval, and civil liberties would types have to be considered. communicate. Since radio waves travel through most substances, an RFID technology does not have the same concerns as some other technologies. RFID are durable and will operate through gloves, dirt and other contaminants. Line of sight is not required between the tag and the reader. Since physical contact is not required, the opposite possibility of duplicate tags being fielded. The disadvantages are that smart gun systems from different manufacturers, using different of tags would not be able This means that the officer to or department that uses more that one brand of firearm would have to have the appropriate key for that brand. In an open system the users have a tag that can be read independently of who manufactured the tag. This reveals the need for standards in the RFID communication protocol. concern is that the reading range is too large Another consideration is whether read only or read/write memory is preferred for a smart and that a firearm taken from an officer may gun still be distinguished memory by the reader. This requires that the range of the reader be minimized for reliable reading only when an officer’s hand is on the firearm. Contention may occur when two tags are simultaneously interrogated by one reader’s antenna. This could occur if the officer wants to be able to shoot with either hand and is wearing a tag on each hand. The concern is that neither tag may be read accurately. Contention is minimized when steps are taken to ensure that only one tag is within the read range of the reader, such as limiting the read range, and controlling tag spacing. A similar problem would be if there were two firearms 84 application. capacity. Both contain The read only sufficient memory contains a code that is placed into the tag when it is manufactured and cannot be For this type you rely on the changed, manufacture to not make duplicate tags. Read/write memory relies on the user to program unique codes in each tag, or have another scheme of identi~ing officers. This places the burden on the police departments, but also gives them much more flexibility. Read only offers security in that the stored code is tamper resistant and cannot be changed, whereas readhwite offers security in that if the code is compromised it can be changed. Since these systems operate on radio A known radio frequency signal can be frequencies there are two additional concerns: modified by radio interference from an outside source, and attaching an RF antenna to a mechanical harmful physiological effects of long term exposure to the radio frequencies. Probleps substrate with specialized properties, an acoustic wave is made to travel across the surface of the device. This unique signal can then be transmitted with another antenna to due to outside interference can for the most part be reduced, but not eliminated. Having a use of a SAW short reading range with a large field strength reduces, but not eliminates, the probability be received that electrical device, can be used as a key. enough to Physiological any radio level of application any health these interference would be strong corrupt the communication. concerns are brought up with frequency device. The relative field strength needed for this is very low and should not present problems. The manufacturers of devices state that the devices are intrinsically safe. and decoded device. By by a discriminator. This altered signal, made unique by the SAW SAW devices are read only. The SAW is composed of materials that are anisotropic piezoelectric, such as man-made lithium niobate or quartz crystal, and a small antenna. A very low power radio frequency signal from the reader is captured by the tag antenna and excites the thin film transducer on the surface of the lithium niobate crystal Similar Technologies The Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) device is a passive tag device that can uniquely encode a radio fi-equency signal. The difference between SAW devices and the above described RFID devices is the manner that the tag modifies the information. Tje implementation, strengths, and weaknesses setting up an acoustic wave along its surface. The wave travels slowly enough along the surface of the crystal that etched metal “taps” of a second thin film can be used to send back to the reader a series of time delayed “reflections” of the original signal. This is an analog equivalent of a binary code and is made unique to each tag. for a SAW device are nearly identical as for a Remote Control RFID device. SAW devices mechanical are based on the theory that disturbances can propagate undisturbed on the surface of certain types of solids. They are unlike bulk acoustic waves because they travel only on the surface, not into the volume of the material. The basics of SAW technology have been known for more than 100 years, but they were not cost effective until the development photolithographic semiconductor processing techniques industry; methods ofi the precise from effective from the signal today’s telecommunications; antenna designs from satellite research. The use of SAW need for technology eliminates the components, switches, semiconductor batteries and circuit boards that may fail oyer time and with exposure to certain extreme environments. Description Remote control is the technology used to operate a device from a distance. A common configuration is a small hand-held transmitter that sends a radio frequency signal to a receiver for interpretation and action. This could be used for remote disablement of a firearm. This is a slightly different philosophy than the other technologies in that the officer must perform an action instead of being automatically sensed. Examples of existing use Remote controls are becoming more popular on consumer products. Many examples of remote controls can be found; TV remote controls, garage door openers, and car alarm controls are just a few. These devices are typically used for the convenience of the user. 85 ● attempting to take concerns are where What it measures A remote control transmits a unique coded his firearm. to place the Other remote signal from the transmitting device to the receiving device. The information is then control, should it attach to the duty belt, to a badge, or some where else. The remote interpreted should and used to control some somewhere operation. easily. EIow it works control requires some human action. The remote control transmits a signal, while a receiver in the device that is to be operated receives the signal. on the remote control devices. is pressed a signal is * on the remote to enable or disable the firearm. This puts the officer in direct control of his firearm. At the beginning of a shifl the Once the officer could enable his firearm. be fired anyone who would pull the trigger, it would not automatically sense who was using it. If someone tried to take the officer’s firearm, the officer would have to push the button on the remote control to disable the firearm. Then the officer could regain control of the Many officers like this method of operation even though it goes against the requirement of the user being automatically sensed by the firearm. It gives them more of a feeling of This manual method of RF control. disablement is an intermediary step to an automatic disablement. The major question is whether an officer could reach the remote control’s button while another person is 86 not be obtained it easily As with other Similar Technologies The active tag is a cross between the passive tag and a remote control. Like the passive tag it contains a unique code. Like the remote control, the active tag broadcasts the information to any discriminator that may be listening. The active tag itself is larger than a passive tag because of the need for its own The active tag is always power supply. transmitting so it does not require an external control stimulus such as pressing a button. The range of the broadcast must be controlled so that the firearm would not be enabled unless intended by the officer. Bar Codes by situation before re-enabling the weapon. or radio devices interference is a concern. small enough to attach to an existing piece of equipment. The officer would press a button it could pocket about having than one transmitter at a time. Any device that receives the signal enabled a a single firearm is trying to listen to more the transmitter to any listening was where it could The concern in could also exist with remote control devices if Possible implementations of the technology For implementation into a smart gun system the remote control would be carried by the officer. The remote control could be made firearm carried almost a game to them. Contention problems When a button distinguishes whether it is a recognized instruction and if an action is required. Various transmission schemes are used depending on the device. Some types of the devices require line of sight between the transmitter and the receiver. be accessible is that if the criminals know that they can disable an officer’s firearm by simply pressing a button, it may become The remote sent from not ● Description A bar code is a symbol consisting of light and dark bars forming a unique code. Depending on the symbology chosen the bar code can represent either numeric or alpha-numeric The symbol is specifically characters. designed for easy optical reading and automatic decoding, while also capable of The bar code is being mass produced. probably the most common method of identification automatic used today. Although the bar code has many strengths as smart gun a technology, no suitable implementation was determined. Examples of existing use be read over a wide depth of field ranging Bar codes are prevalent in society today. The from contact to several feet depending on the common UPC code found in retail environments is an example of current use. The majority of retail items that can be type of reading equipment and the size of the bar code. The least expensive reader, the pen reader, operates on contact as the pen is swept purchased in a store have a bar code attached. across These constant rate. Charge Coupled Device (CCD) readers use the same types of sensors used in bar codes contain the unique code necessary for the identification of the item which then relates to other pertinent information also used tracking such as the price. for video inventory Bar codes are applications from tapes and library books, “to computers and vehicles. What is measured The bar code symbol identi@ing information is encoded and placement contains the unique stored as a series of by varying of the elements. on the symbology of the bar code at a cameras. The image of the bar code is projected through a lens onto the CCD array. The image is scanned and converted digital signal so it can be into a analyzed and decoded. Both the pen reader and the CCD rely on externally generated light. Another bars that form a dark and light code. information the surface The the size Depending used, either the widths of the bars or the spaces between the bars may type of reader, the laser scanner supplies it’s own light. Laser scanners have the largest range of reading distances. The laser light is difised with rotating mirrors to scan a bar code that is within the reading range. The scan rate can be adjusted by the speed of the rotating mirrors. contain the encoded information. Most of the code symbologies are based on the binary The bar code orientation is a consideration in reading the code. When the orientation of the number system, and include means to verify the validity of the code read by including a control character. code is known the reader can be positioned to properly scan the information. If the orientation is not known or if the bar code How it works The bar code can be located on many types of more complex surfaces. These include printing the code on paper or labels, and etching on plastic or metal. The manner that the bar code is must be able to be read in any orientation, a accomplished be used. scanning operation or a specialized Multiple diminish the effects scans must be bar code must are desired to of any imperfections in ● attached influences the type of reader that may be appropriate and the distance that the code can be read. The goal of reading a bar code is to discriminate between the light and dark elements. To be able to read, the bars the bar code. Possible implementations of the technology Bar codes are the most widely used form of automatic applications identification today. The current require an identification method must have a direct line of sight between the that is very cheap, and they also allow bar code and the reader. large scanners that account for the variation The bar code must for also be visible, either with an external light source, or light from the reader itself. The light elements will reflect light while the dark The contrast elements will absorb light. between these two elements is detected by the reader’s photoelectric receiver and used to decode the stored information. in the orientation of the bar code. Even though bar codes are inexpensive, can be placed on many surfaces, and can be read from distances from contact to many feet, no practical method of implementation was found for the use of a bar code as a smart gun Many The placement of a bar code on the officer is the first problem. The bar code would need types of readers depending on the application. are available A bar code can technology. 87 ● to be attached to an item such as a glove that along with the clocking would stored at the same time. Similar to bar codes, the implementation of magnetic stripe devices be required to be worn, or semi- permanently marked on the oflicer’s hand or Since line of sight is required uniform. . between the reader and the bar code, it would be difficult uniform. scanner. moved across problems with contaminants bar can easily codes Implementation interfere of for the credit card smart card technologies to touch memories. the cards with the would information dark and light bars on the bar code, a light source would have to be available, durability of the optics in the reader. suited has the same concerns related to bar codes, or Other are: are industry, but are finding other applications such as on car keys. Smart cards use a small integrated chip that contains relatively large amounts of data. Data can be added, deleted or rearranged within the smart card. the firearm’s This does not seem practical. is difficult. that they the scanners would have to account for a large variation in orientation of the bar code. For most types of readers either the bar code or the reader must move to make This movement could be a reading. accomplished for a bar code on a hand if the hand properly that was Smart cards are similar to magnetic strips in to read a bar code placed orI a Also, information be A different use of smart to template store for the enrollment an officer. The smart card would then contain all the necessary information about the officer’s key that the firearm would need to know. If an officer needed to use another officer’s firearm and the Similar technologies As with bar codes, the following technologies that he had not been pre-programmed were a could insert his smart card and then be able to not found implementation to have practical use the weapon. as a smart gun technology. The magnetic stripe is the most widely used technology for handing for, he ● person-based Optical character recognition electronically is the process of identifying printed text. This is transactions, just as the bar code is the most prevalently used method for handling item The most common based transactions. location for a magnetic stripe is on the back of some type of media such as paper or often used to automate sorting and data entry of pre-printed material, such as those different looking numbers on the bottom of checks and bills. By scanning the text and recognizing the shapes of the letters, or even plastic properties cards. Credit cards, subway or of the ink, it is possible reader to recognize the text. Again similar to airplane tickets, and identification badges often use the magnetic stripe to store bar code, implementation information. Standards are available for reading and writing to magnetic strip cards. Touch memory Data is referred similar read or reader, recorded on the thin magnetic layer This process is to as the stripe. to that done with cassette tapes. To write from the card it is placed in a like that of an ATM machine. The magnetic record/writing head must be in contact during the readinghvriting process. The card must remain moving past the head. Some readers are set up for the user to ‘swipe’ the card, but more will ‘eat’ the card so that the speed is controlled. In this way and zeros that are the digital ones magnetically stored on the tape can be read, 88 for the b is difficult. Description The touch memory is a technology used to automate the identification of items. The device consists of a digital memory device placed in a small can. The can acts as both the reader interface and physical protection for the memory. The information in the memory can be read by simply touching the can with a reader. Although Touch Memory is a trademark for a product made by Dallas Semiconductor, for this report touch memory is used to describe any type of device . containing a memory that has to be physically that the user’s contacted by a reader to read the contents of contact with the firearm for the firearm to be the memory. enabled. memories applications, purposes. production are typically used in numerous for inventory control Touch memories can be used on lines to store product information. Companies use touch equipment for memories inventory The concern is the type of contact that is required. An electrical contact must be Examples of existing use Touch hand must be in physical control, placed on and on personnel badges for access control, and even for time and attendance record keeping. What it measures Information stored in memory is read and used as a unique piece of data. Various sizes and types of memory can be used in a touch memory device. The memory could be. a predefine serial number that is unique to that device, or it could be a read/write device. A read/write device allows the information to be updated. made between the metal package of the touch memory, and the metal contacts of the reader. Many problems could occur that would hinder this communication channel from operating reliably. These include any type of contaminants that could get on the electrical contacts of the ring or the reader, such as dim oil, or blood. This also includes water that Wearing gloves could short the contacts. while firing would also be a problem with this type of device. The major weakness of this and other similar technologies is the alignment of the touch To make memory device on the firearm. contact, the memory aligned. and the reader must be If the memory is placed on a ring it must be designed so that it will be in the right contact between the device and a reader. The orientation to be read no matter how the user’s hand is placed on the firearm. The reader must be positioned on the firearm such that it does not interfere with the normal contact completes an electrical circuit so that the data can be serially read. The reader gripping of the weapon, but still has the proper tolerances to make the necessary supplies both the power to the memory device An officer cannot worry about contact. whether the ring has rotated on his hand, or if How it works Touch memories and the necessary memory. are read through physical logic Attachments signal to read the are available for use with the touch memory that can transmit the information by radio frequency. With this attachment the device becomes an RF tag. Possible implementations For a touch memory of the technology to work it must have physical contact made between the reader and it is not in exactly the right position. The unique item being sensed is the memory. Different strategies could be employed, but some care needs to be taken to ensure how memory content is controlled. Typically each memory would have a different unique number stored that would identi~ the user. The Touch Memory device has a serial the memory device. A likely implementation would have the touch memory mounted ofl a number ring, and a reader built into the grip of a firearm. In this implementation, when the company and is unique to that device. Another scheme would be to have some part firearm was in the hand of an authorized user or all the memory alike for a particular set of people. This would require that the code be periodically changed in case it was compromised, but could allow organizations in the same location to use each others firearms if the need arises. the touch memory would be in physical contact with the gun. The memory could be read and the firearm could be enabled. One major strength of this type of system is that it is very similar to existing firearms, in encoded that is controlled by the 89 Chapter 9 Biometrics Introduction A biometric Technologies presents a sample of their characteristic to the to Biometric devices is a measurable, unique physical characteristic or personal trait used to identi~ or verifi the identity of a person. The characteristics can fall into two classes: A physiological and behavioral. physiological ● a person’s “Are you who you say you are?” When Jane Doe gives you information about herself, you only need to look at her file (reference template) to verify her identity. Verification simplifies the search for identities because the feature that does not change system has to compare the sample that was just taken with only one previously stored template instead of all of them. The drawback without injury to an individual. Common physiological characteristics that are unique are fingerprint and eye retinal patterns. The behavioral characteristics are based mainly on behaviors This is like answering the question is a relatively characteristic stable physical system. psychological include makeup; handwriting of verification is that the user must do something before being verified, such as entering a personal identification number unique (PIN). and typing characteristics. Behavior based systems need to compensate for the variability, which may a PIN is used as a secure a biometric system the PIN is just an index to the stored template. and behavioral attributes. The characteristic must be unique, that is being the only one of its kind. Uniqueness implies that the characteristic does not change over time, and Physiological is not easily copied. characteristics are considered to be more reliable because of the normal lack of behavior variability, compared to While password in an automated teller machine, for patterns. Some characteristics like voice prints have a combination of physiological Biometric systems, or devices, are automated . devices that measure the unique characteristics and compare, decide, and whether an identification or indicate The living verification has been achieved. personal characteristic has to be captured in an analog or digital form. This reading has to be processed, previously reduce the reliability of identification. made. stored, and compared with a stored reading for a decision to be A comparison score gauges how close It is important to recognize the distinction between the two types of biometric processes that exist: identification and verification. Identification is the process of comparing a sample to all the templates that are stored to see if there are any matches. This process is the measurement is to the previously stored pattern. If the new reading surpasses a predetermined threshold it is considered a match. Biometric systems attempt to operate in much the same manner as humans to recognize an individual. A reference like looking into a crowd, seeing a person, and asking yourself “Do I recognize you?’. template containing the specific data of the characteristic must initially be stored so that a later comparison can be done. This template The important fact is that the person did not do anything except let you look at them (let a unique sample be taken of their characteristic): the system did all the work of identifying the individual. In the verification process the person claims an identity and then is similar to you description, of a for the first time. identify a person sample of each . 90 being shown a picture, or a person you will be meeting Now when you are trying to in a crowd, you are taking a person you see and are comparing each template. Many information of them to the reference systems will in the template update the each time the threshold is set very high so that no unauthorized users will be allowed, then it is also more likely that a valid authorized user person uses the system, in this manner the will be rejected. system learns of any subtle changes that have rejection, or Type I error. occurred in the person’s characteristic. threshold is set low so that authorized users will always be identified, then it is more Many systems also attempt to verify that the sample taken is from a live person so that imitations can be more easily detected. Since the system needs a reference template for each person that will ever need to use the system, each person must first be enrolled. a person stored in a template on the system, person cannot be identified. which If does not have their characteristic a person is enrolled that The manner in depends on the system. Some controls must be maintained to ensure that only authorized users are enrolled. During enrollment characteristic the enrollee submits the being measured to the machine that will store it as a template. This may require repeated samples until a template that reliably matches the person can be produced. Algorithms are used to convert the measured characteristic into a series of ones and zeros that can be used in a computerized system. The process used for conversion is normally made so that the original information be reverted fi-om the template. the privacy templates. cannot This relieves issues of storing the biometric Templates are typically stored in a This is referred to as a false likely that an unauthorized Conversely, if the user will also be authorized. This is referred to as a false acceptance, or Type II error. These error rates are related to each othec as one improves the other deteriorates. Rates for both types of errors are specified biometric systems, compare different by manufacturers of and are usually used to products. Like any manufacture’s claim, the numbers need to be scrutinized. It must be understood how the numbers were obtained, by whom, in what circumstances, and how many attempts the users were given during each transaction. user typically needs to expect some A false rejections on their first few attempts to use the system; these need to occur during training as they learn how the system obtains a good reading. Training is the most effective method to reduce false rejections. A biometric as smart gun technology The basic biometric smart gun system follows the lock and key analogy. The key is the biometric that is being measured. discriminator contains one device The that centralized system that can be accessed by the appropriate sources. Templates can also be measures the characteristic, stored reading is compared with the previously stored templates that are stored in the system. on magnetic stripe cards, or smart cards, if the template needs to be available to the user, as in some verification systems. systems Existing biometric commonly used for access control. are most They are used for access to some of the most secure military laboratories and also for college cafeterias. Biometrics do not give a positive yes/no recognition like other technologies. They give a relative measure of how close the processes the A discrimination and another that This new measurement. is performed to determine if a match is found so the latch and the indicators can be enabled and the firearm allowed to fi.mction. Should a smart gun technology use a characteristic that is physiological or behavioral? Both processes are valid for use Physiological in a smart gun system. user matches the pre-stored template, such as what percentage of the comparison process matched. Inside the system, a threshold is set to determine what percentage of a match is characteristics are slow to change and are more prevalent in industry, which are both Behavioral biometrics positive attributes. reliable because the have not been required characteristics before access is allowed. If the are subject to change. An 91 individual’s behavioral characteristics vary more than their physical ones. This variation the ideal, but both error rates need to be as low as possible. For smart gun technologies within the same individual the detection threshold should be available to the user. At a minimum this allows testing of the device and comparison between different can be a more difficult problem than dealing with the differences between people. They require frequent use to update the users’ characteristics. biometrics A slight twist on behavioral would be to train a characteristic into law enforcement be detected. officers that could then This is briefly discussed in later sections. Should a identification smart gun technology The or verification? use ideal method of operation for a smart gun system is an identification system. This is because the user does not have to perform any operations All other that presenting their, biometric. enrollees are checked in an possible identification system without them having to claim an identity. Depending on the number of enrollees in the system this could take a long time. In verification systems the user devices. If the threshold is also made user change-able the amount of security added to the firearm can be determined by the user. Proper education would be needed for users to understand the implications to use it. Biometric smart gun systems must also be designed for first attempt identification. All statistical data must be reported as related to the first attempt at using the system. What other topics should someone must claim an identity, usually by entering a to meet the requirements technology. complications. officer for a firearm system One complication adds is that the would have to remember to enter his PIN or his template, possibly by inserting a magnetic stripe or a smart card. This usually would be done at the beginning of duty (and simplifies the system if only one officer will use the firearm), but to use another officer’s firearm in the field he would first have to remember and enter the PIN under stressfid conditions. Industry surveys have shown that many people have trouble remembering their PIN under normal circumstances. Another complication is the time it takes to enter the PIN, which in some circumstance may be limited. Another complication is that the firearm would have to have the means for an officer to enter his PIN or his template. This adds to the complexity of the firearm by incorporating an additional data entry feature such as a keypad, or a card reader. What type of error rates should a smart gun Ideally both the false technology have? rejection rate and the False acceptance rate would be zero. Existing systems do not meet 92 be aware of when it comes to biometrics? Today’s designed for access biometric systems, control into buildings, have changes to make PIN, which of changing the threshold. Too high of setting could keep the officer from reliably using his firearm, while too low of setting could allow anyone The of following a smart gun is a list of concerns that fit the majority of existing 1) Existing systems are typically devices. located in benign environments and are not movable. The robustness of systems must be analyzed for the particular environment 2) greatly differs from the norm. majority of systems are verification if it The systems that require the user to first enter a PIN to claim an identity. For typical access control situations the user is given up to chances to properly be identified. three Not operating on the first attempt may not be a problem if it only delays a user from entering a work area, but if it stops the user from performing a life critical operation the delay could be deadly, 3) The time it takes for biometric systems to perform identity checks For many systems it is typically too long. takes a few seconds for the system to 4) The size of existing complete its work. units has not been a factor for many of their applications; the firearm application will push 5) Existing the devices into a new realm. devices are typically wired into the existing electrical system. The power consumption the technologies is another concern. of accepting of fingerprinting than many other 6) The biometric technologies. Besides law is currently used costs of biometric systems are very expensive enforcement today, for identi~ing often dollars. in the range of thousands Although of as more manufactures are entering the market place, and as more products are being fielded, the cost continues to drop. fingerprinting a wide range of people includes workers needing government clearances to children whose parents fear the possibility of abduction. In law enforcement, A biometric technology following characteristics. needs to have the It must be reliable, rugged, fast, and accurate. It must be able to balance false acceptance rates. It must be high performance, inexpensive. and false rejection It must be a complete and system, be secure and safe, and be accepted by the user. It must recognize a living person, and not be affected by the methods of the user. It must be immune to environmental factors. So which biometric technology is best for a smart gun? The following is a list of some of the biometric technologies that are being studied today. The following describe biometric measured, sections will characteristics that can be and review technologies that are being studied to measure the biometric. system was developed the the most well existing sequencing to be able to automate technique of coincident used in law enforcement. This process consists of obtaining a set of fingerprints from a suspect or a crime scene and then comparing this set to every other record stored within the system. The result is the identification of a list of similar fingerprints that can be firther scrutinized by hand if necessary. The majority developed of fingerprint today systems are verification being systems. Many companies are developing systems, but there are relatively few that are ready to be to Description is a type of system known as the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) is the accepted norm. This purchased off the shelf. The applications that the new systems are being developed for extend past the normal security applications Fingerprint Fingerprinting that the point-of-sale applications and automatic teller machines. kno~ The What it measures The uniqueness of fingerprints is found by the capturing of the pattern formed by the ridges unchanging and repeatable pattern the ridges and valleys of a person’s fingers is a biometric that has been studied for hundreds of years. The traditional form of fingerprinting is accomplished by making an create. The gross patterns have typically been classified into a number of key patterns that include loops, whorls, and arches. The smaller characteristics, known as minutiae, ink impression occur where ridges end and where they divide. Many minutia relationships can be recorded to distinguish between fingerprints method, and the accepted method, to identi~ law enforcement individuals. of the fingertips using an ink pad and a piece of paper. The impressions are traditionally manually classified by a very labor intensive process. Becoming more widespread is the use of computerized systems to automatically person’s fingerprints. scan and veriij a Examples of existing use The use of fingerprints personnel popularity. as a means of identification is increasing in The general public is more by answering questions similar to the following: Is the feature the end of a ridge or a division?; where is this feature positioned in comparison to the other features?; what are the angular relationships between this feature oriented and the other features?; how many ridges fall between this feature and the other features? The new commercial systems will ● 93 determine the answer to these questions to create a template. or similar ● How it works test that the system is operating correctly. The sizes of current triggers are thin, which A user’s identity is recorded by an automated fingerprint system. By some means such as an electro-optical light, lens, would only give a small slice of the whole scanner that incorporates and fingerprint. charged-coupled-device manipulation may include filtering, edge extraction, and using features included in video frame grabbers. The minutiae are by methods unique to the individual that is used. company’s could be programmed an officer machine By scrapes or contaminants interfering with the minutiae. Having the scanner on the trigger offers the scanner the protection of the trigger “ use a lower number is generally accepted as More into the firearm so that fire with either hand. trigger fingers of the officers would have to remain in uniform condition: not having cuts, coordinate, a direction, a relationship to other minutiae, For or other characteristics. criminal identification purposes there are minimum numbers of features that must be sufficient. could reading the fingerprint fi-om the trigger, the a used, these vary between countries, but is typically a number in the teens. For civilian on the accommodate a larger surface contact with the finger. The trigger finger of each hand that are The minutiae are assigned on the size of the of the finger trigger, this may limit the number of minutiae that are present and limit the uniqueness of the fingerprint. This could be overcome by width of triggers to enlarging the scanned image may be manipulated to obtain a form that better reveals the minutiae. This and recorded Depending slice and the portion (CCD) image sensors, a high-resolution picture of the fingerprint is taken, The live chosen being able to fire unless there is a finger on the trigger, but could cause officers to frequently place their finger on the trigger to features than are required guard. This would assist it from the majority of abuse that may harm it. Other locations for fingerprint scanners of firearms are on the side of the grips to read are often acquired, and then a template is made after a minimum number are matched. one or more of the non-trigger The templates for fingerprint systems often require relatively large amounts of memory. The template is referenced to a personal Future live scan identification number. the thumb rest to read the thumb print. While a scanner on the trigger would only require one scanner for an officer to use either hand, these other locations would require a scanner readings will be compared with this template on each side of the firearm to accommodate to perform a verification when the PIN number is entered. The template is not the both left and right hand operation. Two sets of scanners have many undesirable attributes stored image of the fingerprint itself, but is the stored result of the comparisons done on such as additional cost, volume, and weight. The benefit of having scanners on the side of the minutiae. The actual fingerprint cannot be reconstructed from the template. the firearm is that more than one fingerprint can be read. This leads to a higher reliability since the probability of obtaining a good Possible implementations Implementation of fingerprinting as a smart gun technology has various possibilities. For an authorized user to operate a firearm, the person’s fingerprints must be available to the firearm. There are numerous places that a scanner could be placed on a firearm. The ideal location for the scanner is on the trigger. Having the scanner on the trigger conforms with the basic safety rule of the firearm not 94 fingers, or on reading of at least one of the fingerprints increases. No matter which location for the scanner is chosen, other concerns must be addressed. The most frequently used scanners today consist of optical scanners and CCD arrays. The sizes of these devices are prohibitive for All manufacturers are use on a firearm. striving to reduce the volume required by . their readers and it is only a matter of time for of a performance over the optical systems. reader small enough for firearms is available. Other reading methods are also being brought to market, one being ultrasonic readers. Ultrasonic waves travel through many substances and may be able to read fingerprints through contaminants on the skin or on the reader. This mayor may not be able to overcome the hurdle of the ofllcers’ desire to be able to wear gloves while shooting. wearing of gloves by officers a obstacle major technology from to continues to be keep becoming The an fingerprint acceptable smart gun technology. Another in current systems, is the time that is required to accomplish the entire reading and verifiing cycle. Most, if not all, systems currently take over one a user’s identity. This cycle time must be reduced to meet the officers’ requirement. For a smart gun application the best fingerprinting system would be an identification system. This makes the timing requirement more difficult to accomplish by In a having to search each possibility. verification system a PIN number is entered which reduces the search for the proper user to a single individual, thus reducing the time that is very similar to fingerprinting is to use the user’s palm print The concept for palm identification. for printing is identical to that of fingerprinting. The creases on a person’s palm are measur~d. This uniqueness could be recorded, and a person identified, improve the Voice Recognition Description of Voice Recognition Voice recognition as a biometric is becoming Individuals may be increasingly popular. identified by recording their voice and distinguishing differences in their vocal tract characteristics. The field is separated in to categories to various separate the identification group, of an individual speaker from a and to separate a set of predefine Examples of Existing Use The most well known use for voice systems is probably products. the telephone companies latest Now a person can dial a telephone number by speaking the persons the telephone numbers receiver. These are recorded into by use of a scanner in the firearm’s grip. the market that handicapped The that are allowed to be Using this system saves the user from memorizing phone numbers. A and telephone has commonly even larger called growth into computers. individuals and for numerous industries this offers great potential for productivity. increased inexperienced typists could Even enter characters quickly if the computer understood the spoken word. The goal for dictation is to understand continuous speech (where words are run together into phrases) as compared to discrete speech (where slight pauses are required between each word). Another new biometric that is beginning to be brought to market is identification name into names system during a short training session. number of people stored are limited. For Similar technologies biometric would potential is speech dictation to authorize the user. Another attributes words from any word that may be spoken. complication second to veri~ these of sweat pores on the fingertips. One system uses a sensor smaller than a postage stamp to record the ridges and sweatpores on the fingertip. The silicon sensor contains the equivalent of thousands of contact sensitive switches. The algorithms are also supposed to reduce the time of verification to less than 100 ms. All The most common use of voice verification, as with most biometric access control technologies, in to secure areas. specialized algorithms for many applications are being worked laboratories, and universities, industry. is for Many different on by private 95 What it measures The goal of voice recognition technologies systems that are highly constrained: speaker dependent, discrete speech, and small vocabulary. is not as much to recognize the sound, but to recognize the object that produced the sound. The focus produce is the the speech, include the mechanisms vocal on characteristics These various characteristics speech the throat requires a microphone producing along the human body’s tract: How it works The user’s voice needs to be recorded. that cavity, nasal . cavities, and the mouth itself. Since each person’s physical characteristics are different, even a well-trained mimic could not jeopardize Voice systems are separated into two classes: and speech recognition. Speaker recognition attempts to discern the person from their spoken words, can be processed. The microphone needs to be placed very close to the user’s mouth to minimize background noises and directional influences, or at a minimum placed at a consistent consistent distance in a environment. Processing consists of a wide variety of filtering, scaling, and compression the system. speaker recognition, This means to turn the analog signal into a digital signal that entire the and some to enhance the utterance, and retain all the characteristics usefhl for comparing to the in other previously stored template. Some type of words determining who said it. Speaker recognition can be either identification or algorithm is used to match the processed utterance to the template and a decision is verification made as to if it is a recognized word, or user. The types of algorithms used are very of an individual. Sometimes the terminology gets confising because different words are used. Sometimes voice is used for speaker, and sometimes authentication complicated is The goal is to be able to recognize If the speaker substituted for ver@ation. recognition system can recognize the speaker system. of the vocal tract. Different sounds are made speaker (speaker identification) phrases (continuous by different parts of the vocal tract: the lips, In a text dependent system, recognition can only be done when the speaker says a word from a small set of words. The ideal speaker recognition system would be a system capable of identi~ing any speech) saying which . any systems. These Possible Implementation Implementation of a voice recognition system follows the basic analogy of the smart gun system. The person’s voice, or what the A microphone person says, is the key. mounted on the firearm receives the voice input and sends it to the discriminator. The discriminator then attempts to recognize the speaker, or the utterance. If the recognition is completed successfully then the latching mechanism is enabled. systems are not available. also known as text Speech recognition, recognition, is determining what was said. can be either text Speech recognition independent or text dependent, depending on the limitations set on the words that will be recognized. Speech recognition also has other factors that affect recognition. The ideal speech recognition system would be system capable of working with any speaker saying phrases (speaker independent) In this system the firearm must be able to hear the user’s voice through the microphone. Existing systems require a person to talk (continuous speech) which include any type of word (text independent). These systems What is available are are not available. . 96 tongue, roof of the mouth, throat, and even the nose, are all involved in the sound of the utterance. Over time a person’s voice will change, and an adaptive system should be used. A great amount of research is being done on both speech and speaker recognition includes any type of word (text independent). speech and speakers based on the physical characteristics no matter what he says then it is a text independent and often proprietary. directly into a microphone. signal from the voice with any This increases the of the user compared extraneous environment. noise from If the environment the of the user is so noisy that the user cannot be heard then the system would not be able to recognize the user. The position of the microphone is critical to make these systems operate reliably. A user would have to be enrolled by speaking into the system multiple times until the system can recognize the characteristics of his voice. This may be done by repeating a small set of predefine reading words multiple times, or by a portion of selected text. The process depends on the particular recognition algorithms being used, and could be a very short process or it could take a long time to totally recognize A great deal companies work. simple involved There single-chip work in is being voice algorithms available, done by recognition are commercially products available but they use that are not as reliable. Most systems are computer based, some requiring large amounts of processing power. For the firearm application the size of the processors could need to be reduced to fit within a firearm. A smart gun system could be based on a text dependent recognize system, where the firearm would a predefine case the ofilcer any changes list of words. In this would call out a “password” that the firearm would recognize, but there is some concern of whether the officer in a highly stressful situation would remember the “password”, if he could articulate it accurately, and if the system could recognize his voice due to stress related changes. This is a good reason for a text independent system that recognizes any words. So as the offiqer is speaking the firearm is constantly enabled. Also this is why the system should recognize the characteristics of the voice and not the Only the most sound of the voice. sophisticated algorithms attempt to take into in the voice due to stress, or hoarseness. Time to recognize concern. 15 the individual is also a Many systems take between 2 and seconds verification to authorize system. a user in a This time must greatly be reduced for a firearm voice recognition to work. system based on Hand Shape Description Among the unique characteristics are the lengths of their fingers. veri$ the three dimensional of humans Scanners that representation of a user’s hand are among the most common biometric device used in access control today. Examples of existing use The majority a user’s voice. of account of uses for hand verification readers have been for access technology decades. has been control. for The nearly two Readers can be found in locations from college Sites used for cafeterias to nuclear facilities. hand recognition continue to increase because of the ease of use: simply placing your hand flat on a surface. Another reason for popularity has been the readers low error rates: rejected. an authorized user is rarely What it measures A hand verifies recognition characteristics device measures and of the human hand. Items such as the finger length, width, area, and height can be measured. One dimensional to three dimensional systems are possible. How it works The characteristics of fingers measured by various methods. can be The simplest method is to use photoelectric measure the length of each finger. cells to A more common method is to use a CCD camera to capture the complete outline of the hand; the third dimension of hand height is also sometimes recorded. This captured image is measured using the software algorithms within the device. The result is compared to 97 uniqueness of a user’s hand when it is wrapped around a curved surface such as a the result that was stored during enrollment. Since these are verification systems the user entered PIN determines which stored template is used for comparison. an individual’s fwearm grip. Existing systems measure the hand when it is held with fingers outstretched. The size of hand is not so much unique The successful use of systems has depended compared to any other hand, but unique when on this approach; compared the uniqueness of measuring finger length on to the characteristics the associated geometry PIN. stored with The template for hand recognition is small compared a curved surface. to Sensors must be placed on both sides of the many other biometrics. Although grip to accommodate both left and right handed users. CCD cameras usually have focusing optics that do not fit this application. other methods have been tried, the successful approaches have been to lay the hand flat on a plate with fingers placed against pins successful for alignment. approaches include The Photoelectric less capturing the no research was found on cells have potential if an array of sufficient quantity is used to measure the . small changes in the measured characteristics. hand’s details while the hand is held in free The frequency space, reading the creases on the inner side of considered. the fingers, the ambient light conditions. frequencies will have some or laying the hand flat with no alignment pins. Possible Implementation Implementation of a hand recognition would require a method to determine the hand’s characteristics while gripping the firearm. Having a repeatable manner in which characteristics are measured is the primary concern. Officers are well trained and probably have a more repeatable grip than many other firearm users. Even so, alignment features would most likely be necessary to even further enhance the repeatability of the grip. Some officers use contoured “combat grips” today, but other officers dislike them or are forbidden to use them on service firearms. Whatever alignment method is chosen it needs to accommodate both left and right handed users. There are many reasons that the method of obtaining a hand geometry measurement on a firearm is more complicated compared to These limitations some other applications. make the job of using hand geometry measurements for identification, rather than verification, even more difficult. On a firearm system it is difficult to measure the hand in three dimensions, this limits some of the information available. After the fingers are aligned, then the question arises about the 98 of light used must also be Visible light will be effected Some by other percentage of light absorbed into the finger causing other variations in the measurement such as blood flow and oximetry. Another approach sensors. would be to use contact The contact sensors that are being developed for fingerprints could easily be adapted to measure the contact surface of the fingers. Again the concern is that the contact surface is not the same as the outside dimensions of the finger, and that changes due to other factors may change the Pressure sensors would measurements. operate like contact sensors, but also measure the amount of pressure being applied at each location. . also be Capacitive proximity used to sensors could determine characteristics of a person’s discussed in the section proximity sensors. the mass hands; this is on capacitive No matter what method of measurement is used it must be reliable and repeatable. It has to be able to measure the finger dimensions and not other attributes that change like internal blood flow, the length of fingernails, or whether the user is using a one or two Also the matter of wearing handed grip. gloves is again a concern because gloves change the appearance of the finger characteristics. One thing that should not affect the readings are environmental effects How it works such as cold, hot, wet, dry, or dirty hands. Depending on what is being measured various types of sensors are used to measure the Signature speed, or location of an item at any point in time. Dynamics Description Possible Implementation A person’s signature has been used for years For a firearm system, in the banking industry as of means mf identification. Signature recognition is a behavioral biometric that is used to verify a user’s identity based on their handwritten signature. It is included it these discussions as an example of how a behavioral biometric attributes that could be measured that would could be used specifically in a firearm application, signatures captured by are exist. holster, being overnight electronically delivery services. Although these devices are not used to recognize the signature, systems are on the market that will veri~ the signature by comparison with a stored template. signatures are already an accepted identification much verify one officer from another? Or could officers be trained to perform a special action, such as flexing a certain muscle, that then could be sensed and used to enable the firearm? The answers to these questions are unknown, but it is possible a person’s draw characteristics. Examples of existing use Today work Since form of is continuing are there behavioral to develop systems. improved Another “signature” based system looks at the rhythm of keystrokes on a computer keyboard to veri~ not only a password but the person typing the password. that traits could The drawing of the firearm from the the manner in which the grip Since these are all behavioral, not physiological traits, the trait may change due to factors such as stress, or injury, or simply be forgotten. Also whatever trait is measured would have to be valid even if the firearm was not drawn from the holster but in any circumstance that may arise. This is where a trained simple action performed by the officer may be a very good option. Biometrics Above The Neck Signatures are typically visually compared with a signature card or another known valid Description of the head’s biometrics signature. on a person’s What it measures general Visual comparison formations of only allows the the letters to be compared, so clever forgeries or photocopies will be similar or identical. Other traits of a person’s signature can be characterized by electronically capturing the signature. These traits such as the amount of pressure at various points, the rhythm, and the speed and acceleration of the pen strokes make a signature nearly impossible to duplicate. In the same manner the characteristics of an officer’s grip, draw, and trigger pull may visually look similar to other officers but may have special attributes unique to that officer. is squeezed, or the way that the trigger is pulled, could all be compared to how the officer normally performs these actions. Many unique features of the human are found head. These are what each of us typically use in identi~ing each other on a daily basis. These features include recognizing the face, the eye, and even the ear. Although the manner in which these might be used in a handgun is not obvious, they may have better applications in rifles. Examples of existing use The most successfid of biometrics this is the retina scan. of the retinal vascular category of This scanning pattern on the back surface of the eye provides some of the highest security possible. New systems are becoming available for security applications ● 99 which base verification from other facial features. Retinal scanning measures the vascular pattern on the back of the eye by shining a weak What it measures Various parts of the head can be measured and reviewed for unique characteristics. Eyes have many unique qualities from the color, and shape, to the routing of the blood vessels inside. Ears have different shapes and curves. Faces have different bone structure, height to width ratios, and temperature profiles. Using infrared light through the pupil and capturing the reflected pattern. This pattern can be analyzed and compared to previous readings to verify an individual. These systems are among the most reliable in recognizing users and not accepting unauthorized users. Iris scanning is another method of veri~ing various techniques, all of these characteristics an individual. can be measured and compared to previously stored images to make a decision of a contains characteristics known as contraction fi.mrows, striations, pits, collagenous fibers, person’s identity. filaments, crypts, serpentine vasulature, rings, How it works and freckles, all of which make each iris unique. A video picture of the iris is stored Facial feature recognition records the face of the user and then compares certain features each time the user attempts to use the system. Using video cameras representation and frame grabbers a of a person’s face is captured. The face is then analyzed using advanced image processing techniques to map the facial geometry. Neural networks, that attempt to mimic the way the human brain learns, then classifi the faces so they can be recognized. These systems geometry beards, lighting, attempt to map the facial in such a way that changes hair styles and color, head position, not affect the recognition shadows and expressions like and do process. Facial thermography is another method to recognize the face. The heat being released from the face, caused by underlying vascular pattern, is mapped. Manufactures claim that this pattern is different for each individual, even twins. Using infrared imaging, related to the kind used in night goggles, the heat patterns are stored and used to recognize individual. 100 the and compared The colored part of the eye to a previous version through algorithms and image processing techniques. Ear detection is a relatively newcomer to the biometric field. Images of a person’s ear are used to make a map that can be used to verify the person. Possible Implementation Implementation of these types of biometric identifiers in a handgun may not be possible because of the different locations of the head and the firearm. There may be potential applications for firearms with scopes. A scope offers the eye alignment possibilities that are needed for the retina and iris scanning systems. By looking through the scope the necessary capturing of the eye details needed could be taken without any notice from the user. The drawback of eye systems used in security applications thus far have been the user’s fears of holding their eyes up to the scanning devices. Chapter 10 Miscellaneous Many different centuries devices to only access to mechanical prevalent. Technologies have been used for allow authorized protected items. locks on doors persons Still today, are the most In this section various items ha!ve been placed which did not fit into the other categories of technologies. Magnetic magnetism are related, to activated Magne~s have a north and south pole, and attract ferromagnetic materials. These properties can be used in different of a smart gun. Hall effect This relationship reed sensors act as a mechanical have been used for simple electrons pass through a magnetic conductor. magnets. by the Alternatively, magnet physically move a series of the force produced could also mechanisms used to to enable be or disable a firearm. Examples of existing use Magnets are used in so many people forget Refrigerator that doors they are places are covered that present. with advertisements attached to small magnets. Magnets often hold that same door closed. Magnets are used in magnetic padlocks, rpm sensors, and kids’ toys. A magnetic device called the Magna-Trigger was one of the first smart gun available commercially technologies. What is measured In general terms the magnetic field strength, or the magnet’s attractive force, is being The north and south poles of measured. ferromagnetic materials, such as iron, are the result of the alignment of the individual small magnetic fields produced by spinning effect sensor. The electrical current in a conductor is produced by moving electrons. As the are attracted or repelled by Hall sensors measure the effect of a magnetic field placed on an electrical conductor in the sensors can be used to sense magnetic poles, produced magnetically switch. such as a code led How it worka Magnetic Description Electricity is produced by the of electrons, thus electricity and to the invention of electrical sensors able to measure the magnetic field strength. years Encoding implementations electrons. movement field they to one side of the This change in current density can be measured by a hall effect sensor. Possible implementation There are two general methods of using magnets in a smart gun device. One is to use the magnet’s attraction to ferromagnetic materials to physically move an item. Another is to use reed switches or hall effect sensors to read a code produced by magnets arranged in a specific pattern. One of the first commercially available smart gun technologies involved the use of magnets. The Magna-Trigger used a magnet on a ring to physically move a lever in the grip of a revolver. The movement of this lever would enable or disable the firearm. The complaint that officers have said about this device is that the orientation of the user’s ring on the firearm grip was critical. If the ring rotated on the finger, or if the user’s grip was not normal, then the firearm would not operate. Although it was not possible to validate these complaints they are very understandable. If 101 the magnet is localized on the ring, then if the ring rotates it would not be in the proper position to operate the lever. Also since magnetic forces between poles are inversely proportional to the square of the distances between them; if the placement was not accurate the magnet would not be strong enough to attract the lever. magnet would have to be used. Of course, gloves would hinder the operation. problem with this simplistic ● A very strong What it measures There are different kinds of locks each having a distinct means of controlling its opening. Key locks measure the key cut: the amount of material removed from the key. Combination locks measure the knowledge and input of a sequence of numbers or letters. Another approach is that the key is not unique: any magnet placed in the proper spot would enable the firearm. The best strength of this approach is that there are no batteries needed: all the energy supplied by the magnetic forces. The second type of implementation is uses magnets placed in a known orientation on a ring as a unique code. The code can be read by or using hall effect, similar types of sensors, in the firearm grip. The more sensors that are used, the more likely that the alignment problems can be overcome, but it also increases the cost. The ring still could rotate on the users finger if not designed correctly. The physical size of the magnets could limit the number of unique codes that * could be placed on a ring, or make the ring unusually large. The magnets also must be strong to magnetic enough create a measurable permanent magnets to alleviate the concerns of the magnets becoming demagnetized due to certain severe environments. A handgun using a magnetic technology is being produced by Fulton Arms, Houston, Texas. This firearm was not able to be reviewed and may or may not have addressed these concerns. Locks Description 102 How it works Each lock must distinguish the appropriate type of key. The typical key lock used pins and tumblers to create a sheer line that allows rotation when the proper key is inserted. Mechanical dial combination locks consist in a series of gated wheels. When all the gates are aligned, the lever and fence will drop in to the gates and allow the latching mechanism to open. Other technologies employed in locks like magnetic key actuated, keypad operated, and push-button operated, all use different keys and discriminators but operate on the same principles. Possible implementations Numerous implementations of mechanical locks on firearms exist. All of these demand a user action to unlock the lock. A concern with each of these implementations is having the key available, and the time and skill it takes to insert the key. A major strength of these technologies is that they could be made very reliable and require no batteries. field strength, and they should be A lock is a device used to hold, or secure, an item. There are numerous types of locks having different means of entering a key to verify a user. The most common types are key and combination locks. Examples of existing use Examples of locks surround each person, although some are not always thought of as locks. Locks can be found on almost everything that needs in some way to have limited access. Houses, cars, desks and computers all have locks. Locks are accepted methods of securing items. ● Key locks on firearms could be easily implemented. By simply inserting a key, the lock could enable or disable the firearm, Implementations of combination locks are similar. Typically for a firearm application a push-button combination is assumed, instead of a dial. This type of mechanism would assist an officer in storing his firearm, but could cause problems for a police officer on ● duty. For these implementations ofllcer would remember have to find the combination, the duty the key or then he would have to insert the key or combination into the firearm before he could use his firearm. The time, and the mental and physical facilities, it takes to do these operations would be unacceptable for an officer facing a shooting situation. The key would have to be available for use. The combination would have to be remembered. Inserting these into the firearm would have to be done in any environment: the dark, the rain, or snow. The environments could hinder the ofllcer, or it could hinder the operation of the device itself. Many people have experienced the difficulty that is inserted into the firearm which becomes disabled when it is removed. Examples of existing use Lanyards are attached to numerous items, but are often referred to under a different name. Lanyards have been used in the past for firing cannons, and are still used to attach weapons Another use for a to military aircraft. lanyard, known commonly deploying parachutes. as ripcord, is for What it measures The lanyard itself does not measure anything, but controls the occurrence when removed. of something How it works of inserting a key in the dark, or having ice or A typical operation for a lanyard is to start a dirt build up inside a lock. sequence of events when it is removed. Some say for a combination lock time could be reduced by ~is entering all except the last number. would decrease time, but also reduces the level of security for the officer. Now the adversary would have a higher probability of The lanyard will consist of a device at the end of the cord, which can be as simple as a pin, that keeps the sequence from starting. This pin may keep an item from moving, or trigger another device to start. opening the lock by entering the last number Possible implementations correctly, A lanyard as applied to a smart gun would and if the officer or an adversary of the technology hits the wrong button then the sequence must disable start from the beginning. The firearm would always be enabled as long When the as the lanyard was in place. A major problem with these devices is that the firearm when it was removed. disable itself when it leaves the lanyard was pulled out, the firearm would become inoperable. Depending on how it was officer’s hand. An automatic disable feature could relatively easily be designed into a implemented the pin could be reinserted for immediate use, or require some disassembly firearm, but then the enabling time must re- of the firearm to re-insert the pin. occur. If the officer just was struggling for his firearm and was able to regain control, the Typically last thing he wants to have to do is take out a key to insert into the firearm and then have to ‘keyed’ pin, that would operate much like a key lock. This would add security by making fight over the key. This is supposing that the officer did not mistakenly leave the key in ~he firearm and the adversary was able to re- the lanyards be keyed to a single, or group, of firearms. after the firearm automatically is enabled, it can not lanyards are not unique: a simple pin. There is nothing prohibiting the use of a enable the firearm. The concern Lanyard ofllcer can remove the lanyard if an adversary The lanyard attempts to get his firearm. of a lanyard device could be permanently Description A lanyard is a cord that is attached to an item. In this context it is a cord attached to a key is if the attached to numerous places on the officers uniform so the firearm would only be allowed to extend to the normal reach of the officer. Another concern 103 — is that the adversary could pull the lanyard to cannot identify disable the officer’s Although firearm. the goals of proximity Capacitive Sensing Proximity sensors have been developed nearby. avoid This knowledge collisions between types of proximity Since can be helpful to Various objects. , sensor a to a large hand. This electrical conductors. This capacity varies with the area of the conductors, and the or the child electrodes, although the object being sensed Two can act as one of the electrodes. allow a better electrode configurations defined starting point, and make the sensor less sensitive to the electrical properties of the object being sensed. Possible implementations The state of the art in capacitive sensing today is only sensing if an object is nearby, and some gross attributes about the object: it used two Such as secret on the grip that can not be seen. Some of these switches closed (by covering would have to be them with parts of the implemented with pressure sensors, or contact switches. the space between sensor generates a in terms of the change in The sensor needs two has same as measuring the user’s hand size, or finger length. This approach could also be capacity between any two known electric field in the space between its As the sensor is bought near conductors. another object the changes in the electric field even user’s hand), while others would have to be left open. If taken to the extreme, with an infinite amount of sensors, this would be the How it works 104 opposed switches of an object to object. are measured capacitance. to develop specific the firearm. about implementations can be visualized measures the change in its stored charge as it is brought nearby or in contact with another dielectric properties of them. The capacitance can be Using a different approach, the proximity sensors could be used not identifi the user, but require the user to know something What it measures There is electrical of an object problems though if other materials would be around the firearm, hands. automated vehicles and robotic arms. A capacitance size firearm that would be able to detect a small Capacitance proximity sensors are used in various industrial applications. The common use is in controlling a process when a product is close, or to position the product for the next The sensors are also being operation. for for avoidance systems developed charge. the gross hand, such as that of a child, on the grip as Examples of existing use store electric map of the object measured it would be possible sensors are available, one is the capability firearm. should be handled. is using capacitance as its measure. Capacitance a being sensed. This would allow machinery to know exactly what is approaching and how it with of sensing when an object of sensing is to be able to make a three dimensional Description the capability user it is not possible today, one of the A ● capacitive sensor could work in conjunction with other technologies by telling the firearm when to turn on or off when a hand is present. This could be usefbl to battery operated technologies turned off when not in use. that need to be Other types of proximity sensors are available but are thought to have less potential as smart gun technologies. Color Sensors Description Color is not a physical quantity, but a visual phenomenon. This makes color more difficult to measure than some other items. Since many items are purchased based on their manufacturers color, realize the red, green, and blue filter to describe importance of accurate sensing of the colors. attributes of the color. Sensors that determine have been developed cameras have become available there are also methods being used to use them as the input the color of items to automate the Since CCD the color device to sense the color. inspection of colored items. ● Examples of existing use The majority of uses for color sensors are in Possible implementations factories to detect the presence or absence of an item. Items range from the color of a wire system, the key would be a color that the firearm could recognize. This area of color going into an electrical connector, would have to be in a location to making sure all the ingredients were placed on top of a frozen pizza. What it measures Color sensors measure the amount of light in specific frequency bands. Normally, color is discussed saturation. subjective, frequencies in terms Human of intensity, perception different hue, of color combinations and is of can make the same visual effect. Sensors can objectively measure color. How it works The typical color sensor is a photosensor and a set of filters. The photosensor is a device that has electrical properties that change when light is incident upon it. When placed behind a set of filters these semiconductor devices exhibit changes that are directly related to the amount of light passing through the filters. The filters are chosen to match the range of colors being sought. Many sensors include a For color used in a smart gun technology that a color sensor on the firearm could see. Possible locations for an area of color would be on a ring, or glove that the officer was wearing. Each ofllcer could have a different color. The firearms would distinguish the color’s attributes and compare them the authorized colors stored in the firearm’s database. Concerns include that would where have to be overcome the color is located on the ofllcer. Industrial sensors use their own light source so that they are independent of the ambient light, this could be diflicult in firearm use. Also, there must be a direct line of sight between the sensor and the colored item. If anything, including dirt, gets in the way the sensor may not operate. color, Also the like any good key, must not change. The color cannot fade, or be bleached from ultraviolet washings. light, or multiple out hand 105 . Chapter 11 Latching Mechanisms The latching mechanism is the third piece of the lock and key analogy. mechanism allows fired. lock It is the physical in the smart gun or inhibits system the firearm from enabled being but can be automatically reset. As previously, the key work very must discussed the discriminator mechanisms. and the a user When firearm. entire . firearm’s has firearm’s still meet standards for considered. section of the report because it was determined that it was not a task of this project to determine an implementation for a firearm latch, but only possible mechanisms has a variety of pieces Each firearm in their mechanism. Over the years the designs have been improved to make each mechanism operate It is the both efficiently and reliably. responsibility of the firearm manufacturer to understand the firing chain of their individual firearms insofar as they know the best manner to incorporate a latch into a particular model. There is not a single latching mechanism that can be easily placed in every firearm. section of the report an overview 106 In this of different In The system to match the these for the Besides discussions latch must those discussed the be above, normal use enviromnents, but also an adversary’s attempts at defeating the mechanism. This includes everything from a very strong pull on the trigger to the use of external tools. It must be determined if the latched firearm should lock the trigger from are separated into this that could be used for latching. system. there are other considerations, The material properties of the latch must resist not only an authorized user. Latching mechanisms technology Throughout requirements such as the trigger existing technology capabilities of the rest of the system. There is no sense in making the latch any weaker or stronger than the rest of the system. of the firearm. The must be such that the characteristics, The latch is an important part of the smart gun cooperation with the discriminator the latch provides the actual locking of the firearm. It must be remembered that given sufficient gun activated by the discriminator, it must operate closely with the internal workings of the firearm. The latch needs to be matched to the pull, moving goal is to have the latch portion of the smart While the latch only has to be characteristics implementation of some skill and time all locks can be defeated. been authorized by the discriminator the latch must be notified. prime of a delay system that impedes the use of the and the discriminator closely together. The latch must work together with some and The latch, in a security sense, is used as part (by the discriminator), a description options, devices will be discussed. that The term latch is used to infer that the must be intentionally latching philosophies, design . being pulled or simply allow it to move freely without engaging any other part of the firing chain. The user community needs to be consulted on these decisions. The latch must be able to disable a firearm no matter what state it is in, for example either single or double action. The latch must not be able to act like a second trigger. No matter what state the firearm is in, the enabling of the latch must not cause the firearm to discharge a round, unless the trigger is intentionally pulled. For this discussion, a simplified firearm firing system is used. This will bring out the main points without being burdened by explaining the differences between the various types of The critical components, or systems. elements, in this generic firing chain are the loading (ammunition device), the spring (energy feed), and the firing pin (bullet These disadvantage of this”type of latch is that even with components functional critical This may compromise component be intact for a handgun and to fire of the firing chain to make the smart gun nonfictional. chain, any motion a smart gun latch must be capable of affecting one or more of these critical elements in a manner that breaks the firing chain and prevents unauthorized use of the weapon. METHODS mechanism must be element advantage of this philosophy is a higher degree of surety because the critical element is completely removed from the firing chain. could compromise or it takes so long to do the of that critical shall have no effect on the firing chain. If the critical element is repositioned into the firing chain, the handgun is functional. The longer fimction, that it is not worth the effort. Once the critical element has been positioned outside the firing The disadvantage A smart gun latching the firearm surety. Critical Element Positioning. Each element has a role in the firing chain, if that element is so integrated into the design that if they are removed or modified the firing chain can no LATCHING the chain. storage device), prevent stolen firearms these pieces must be Therefore, restrained trigger (cocking ammunition. It is assumed that the design of a handgun is such that, if any one of the critical components of the firing chain is missing or nonfictional, the firing chain is severed and the weapon is inoperable. To modifications element is still present in the firing not present that function cannot take place. One or more of the critical elements can be positioned such that it is no longer a initiating devic~). must in order the element system design of this method is that the may be complicated, which functional reliability. Critical Element Destruction. removing an element is One method of by having it destroyed. If at least one critical element is irreversibly destroyed, the weapon is rendered permanently inoperable. The advantage of this method is that, once the element has been destroyed, the smart gun is absolutely nonfictional. The disadvantage is that the latch is irreversible and the smart gun would capable of affecting at least one of the critical be permanently disabled, which is undesirable elements in the firing chain. Latching maybe achieved with one or more of the following philosophies: Critical Element Restraint, for law enforcement Critical Element Positioning, Element Destruction. Critical Element Restraint. or Critical LATCH DESIGN There are an infinite number of mechanism designs Each of the elements in the firing chain must be able to move to complete their action. If the motion of a critical element within the firing chain is restrained, the smart gun would be prevented from functioning. If the element restraint is removed, the weapon is capable of firing ammunition. The advantage of this method is that it may be fairly simple to block the motion of one critical element. The applications. However, that could each fimction latch design as will a latch. utilize energy in a specific way, regardless of the form of energy used, which may be mechanical, electrical, or a combination of The following latch designs are both. categorized in terms of the way they use energy and not in terms of a specific mechanism design. Continuous Energy Device. One method of locking is achieved with a continuous supply 107 * of energy. If the energy supply is stopped, the system becomes unlocked. An example presented in this section is based on prime movers selected for their small size, which is of a continuous energy device is a mechanism one of the most important characteristics for a handgun application. that is locked powered (or solenoid. removed, held unlocked) with a When solenoid power is the mechanism changes ● DC its state, Another example is a push-button mechanism These are achieve accurate motion is achieved Another method of with an energy low cost. Another advantage of DC motors is their drive signal; they require only a simple DC voltage for operation. The primary disadvantage of these motors is that to becomes a concern. Energy Storage Device. electromagnetic power consumption, and high speeds. In addition, these actuators are relatively low in that requires continuous hand pressure to The maintain the unlocked condition. advantage of this type of device is that the locking mechanism design is simplified. However, increased power consumption locking Motors. actuators characterized by small volume, storage control, system is necessary, which volume and system complexity. a feedback increases both Another device such as a spring, a permanent magnet, disadvantage of DC motors is that they tend or a capacitor. to have low torque Examples of this type of output. Some details of 0.06 cubic inches can be device are a ratchet mechanism that maintains follow. position using a spring, repelling magnets, or stored charge in a capacitor. The advantage of this device is that it requires only a short achieved and no-load current and voltages on the order of 12.5 milliamps and 3 volts, respectively, are typical. Speeds as high as pulse of energy for locking, occur. energy or unlocking, to Volumes 14,000 rpm can be expected. However, the introduction of the storage device into the latching for quality DC motors Typical prices are in the tens of dollars. Stall torque to volume ratios average ● mechanism may increase system complexity. approximately What is more important, a new critical element has been introduced and the Stepper Motors. stored energy, performs the same function as of stepper motors the valid method of energy release. their larger size, and higher cost. concern of stepper motors is their additional volume. Some details follow. to volume ratios average Stall torque approximately 1.7 in oz/in3, which is almost twice that of DC motors. Volumes of smaller however, a prime mover may also take the form of a person’s hand. (One method of 108 include drive signal and the accompanying electronics. Steppers require a drive signal consisting of two square waves 90 degrees out of phase and the added electronics required to produce this signal can consume A prime mover is any device that supplies the motion required to actuate the latch system. In general this will be a device that converts electrical energy to mechanical motion, the power required, may be to used the energy from the pull of the trigger, or from the gripping of the weapon, to be the prime mover.) There are many types and manufacturers of prime movers and this section is not intended to be review of all Information possible prime movers. of higher power consumption, Another MOVERS ridding the battery, or at least minimizing The primary advantage stepper motors is their ability to provide accurate motion control without any external feedback system. These motors also have good torque capabilities. The disadvantages mechanism that releases the energy must be carefully scrutinized. Now any false signal, environment, or accident that can release the PRIME 0.9 in ozJin3 for these motors. ● size steppers are on the order of 0.22 cubic inches. Typical no-load drive current and voltages are 390 milliamps and 28 volts, respectively, per phase. Their cost can range as high as hundreds of dollars. Piezoelectric Piezoelectric electrical Traveling traveling energy Wave Motors. wave motors directly motion by the piezoelectric to convert mechanical effect. They are Solenoids. Solenoids linear and rotary. comparable relatively to come motors. simple devices characterized by high torque output in a small DC signal for operation. are low cost actuators. is their primary advantage. types, They can have volumes DC package, which in two They are that require only a Additionally, However, they solenoids require more power than that of a comparable sized DC motor. Also, linear solenoids provide only linear motion and, consequently, are more susceptible to external forces, such Another very important characteristic of piezoelectric traveling wave motors is that they require large frictional forces to convert oscillations of the piezoelectric element to rotary motion of the output shaft. This as those due to dropping shock, which tend to frictional drive results in a high detent torque, be linear and not rotational. which is the holding torque a motor possesses follow. with no power. dollars. No-load current and voltages average piezoelectric The high detent torque of traveling wave motors makes them an excellent candidate for an Energy Storage Device. In addition, piezoelectric actuators are insensitive to magnetic fielhs. There are three primary disadvantages of piezoelectric traveling wave motors. First, one piezo motor requires two high frequency sine waves as a drive The drive signal. frequency must be continuously varied to match the resonance frequency of the piezoelectric element, which will change with load and temperature. Thus, the drive electronics complex for these actuators can be very and volume consuming. Secondly, this is a relatively new technology are few commercial their cost motors suppliers. is high. are moderately Thirdly, and there Consequently, piezoelectric high power devices. Some details follow. Typical no-load drive current and voltages are 60 milliamps and 28 volts peak-to-peak, respectively. Mall torque to volume ratios of 8.0 or higher can be expected and volumes as low as 0.009 cubic inches are achievable. Currently, prices for small traveling wave motors can be as high as thousands of dollars. Some details Solenoids can be priced as low as ten approximately 300 milliamps and 10 volts, respectively. LIGA Actuators. LIGA making three-dimensional is a technique microstructure for in metals, plastics, and ceramics from a process that combines lithography, and plastic molding. electroforming, The primary advantage of LIGA actuators is their extremely small size. Volumes as small as 0.0018 cubic The primary inches can be achieved, disadvantage of LIGA actuators is that the technology is relatively young. Performance characteristics of these actuators, which can be either a stepper or a solenoid, Also, commercially unknown. are mostly available actuators may be years away. However, LIGA motors are batch since manufactured in much the same way as computer chips, their cost is expected to be reasonable. A design issue associated with these motors is the interaction between the very small LIGA actuator and the larger piece parts normally This is a concern that found in handguns. will have to be addressed before LIGA actuators make their way into smart guns. 109 Chapter 12 Technology Fifteen Evaluations implementations technologies evaluation technologies of fourteen ● of technologies The also lent itself to referring the it is one of the predefine authorized and control the latching mechanism. signal to any firearm within range when the user presses the button. The firearm contains an antenna to receive and validate whether the gives a brief signal is one of the predefine authorized users and controls the latching mechanism. description of the implementations of the technologies that were ranked. The evaluated implementations approximated the most appropriate methods for the technology they were to be built today. users, The REMOTE CONTROL technology was button activated evaluated as a push transmitter that would transmit a unique may affect the evaluation scores, the following the transmitting range. active a user’s hand within the range would receive the data from the active tag, validate whether that have IMPLEMENTATIONS OF EVALUATED TECHNOLOGIES the implementation was evaluated tag would constantly transmit unique information. A firearm being held in similar characteristics even though they may have totally different theories of operation. The six technologies required by the project contract are included in this list. Because TAG technology practical to minimize been reviewed in this report. The specific list results to other similar technologies The ACTIVE as a radio frequency transmitter that the officer would carry as close to the firearm as were taken through the entire and ranking process. The are a subset of the ones that have The TOUCH MEMORY technology was evaluated as a contact-read memory device if s attached to a ring that the user would wear. was evaluated as a passive system using a tag The firearm included in its grip a special reading surface that could read the memory placed on a ring or a wristband. The firearm included an antenna that transmits radio when the memory was in contact. The contact of the memory itself is enough to start frequency energy to the tag whenever the firearm is in the hand of the user. The tag the reading action, evaluate the signal, and control the latching mechanism. includes a receiving antenna that powers a small integrated memory from the radio was The FINGERPRINT technology evaluated as a firearm with multiple optical frequency energy, and another transmits the memory’s data firearm. Another antenna in receives the information from scanners placed on the trigger or grip. When the user’s hand is on the firearm his The RADIO FREQUENCY TAG technology antenna that back to the the firearm the tag, and validates whether it is one of the predefine authorized users and controls the latching mechanism. The SAW TAG technology has an identical implementation to the Radio Frequency Tag. 110 fingerprints are scanned and analyzed. The firearm then validates whether it is one of the predefine authorized users and controls the latching mechanism. The was MAGNETIC ENCODING technology evaluated with two implementations. Both use a ring with a magnet with north and lanyard strap would south remove the lanyard and disable the firearm. poles magnetic arranged fields reading action. .. . in a pattern. The can be used to initiate the Implementation (A) uses ~n array of electronic sensors around the grip to distinguish the magnetic field pattern. Implementation (B) uses magnetically actuated mechanical switches in the grip to sense the pattern. The firearm then validates the pattern to determine whether it is one of the predefine authorized users and controls the latching mechanism. The VOICE RECOGNITION evaluated microphone with technology a firearm was that includes a and all the processing electronics necessary to distinguish the utterance that the user is required to speak to enable the firearm. The latching mechanism can then be appropriately controlled. The FINGERLENGTH evaluated with multiple technology optical was transmitters and receivers that are arranged to measure the length of the user’s fingers while they are gripping the firearm and aligned by ridges on the grip. It was never determined if the length of a user’s fingers was unique when gripped an a curved surface. The BARCODE with an optical technology was evaluated scanner on the firearm grip The KEY LOCK have to be pulled technology with a metal key (similar to was evaluated to a door key) inserted into a firearm. The firearm would distinguish the key through a mechanical discriminator that would control the latching mechanism. The firearm would be enabled or disabled by turning the key. The COMBINATION LOCK technology was evaluated with a lock that can be unlocked by a memorized combination of button presses on the firearm. The firearm includes the keypad to enter the combination, and could distinguish the key through either a mechanical or electrical discriminator that would control the latching mechanism. SUMMARY OF THE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATIONS The evaluation of the technologies by reviewing each requirements against took place of the engineering the implementation Each technology was described above. assigned a score from O to 10 as to how well it could meet that requirement. The scores were assigned according to the capabilities of the technologies today. Changes such as repackaging and reduction in size were that would scan a bar code when the firearm assumed to be possible was in the user’s hand. An exact method to except where technical challenges ruled them attach a user a bar code to was never adequately determined. The CAPACITIVE PROXIMITY technology was evaluated with sensors placed on the firearm that would sense a large mass disturbing the field created by the sensor, It was never determined how to make a user’s technology out. For some requirements it was impossible to assign a score, because there is not an actual product to analyze. The scores were Two then summed for each technology. summations were made: one made directly from the scores, and the other from the score multiplied times the officers’ importance for that requirement as obtained through the QFD process. Both of these summations were hand mass appear unique. The LANYARD for the technologies was evaluated with a uniquely shaped lanyard (similar to a door key) inserted into a firearm. The firermn would distinguish the lanyard through a mechanical discriminator that would be integrated with the latching mechanism. The compared with the maximum score possible By this for the ranked requirements. comparison each of the technologies was graded within a category of requirements, as well as with the whole set of requirements. The scores were assigned to bullets that represent a grade (A, B, C, D, or F). An A+ 111 ● sensing is too crude and the mass too nonunique to be used today. signifies that the maximum score available was achieved (1 OOVO). The other grades signi~ a percentage of the maximum score available was achieved as follows: A = 90- The 99’XO,B = 80-89%, C = 70-79%, D = 60-69%, and F < 59°/0. The bullets were chosen so that comparisons between technologies characteristics of all are less than perfect. the Most are currently too large, although most could be made smaller if there was some incentive for could be the manufacturers reviewed by a glance of the eye. Figure 32 and its accompanying physical technologies technologies to proceed. the sensors would For some need to be placed on both sides of the firearm to reliably notes show sense both left and right handed user’s. This means that for officer’s to be able to use the summarized results of the rankings of the technologies without importance ratings compared to the various categories of the engineering requirements detailed in this report. Shown are only the categories of either hand to discharge the firearm the technologies must be made even smaller than if only one sensor had be fit in the available engineering volume. requirements that requirements which were ranked. that the importance contained The reason ratings are not shown in ● them, The notes attached attempt to summarize all the significant qualifications that exist for that particular ranking for all the requirements that could be ranked. The notes some type of on/off switch to control when the technology is looking for an authorized user. (Ideally this switch might be the trigger if a technology could operate fast enough and are independent of whether the importance is qualifiers that more be reliable enough that an indicator was not In general the notes are negative (thus more notes generally concerns are present). required.) imply key. verbal description of the figure follows. This switch needs to automatically latching technologies distinguish one user from another. Finger length is one of the best biometrics used 112 has to turn The technologies that were entirely, or mostly, mechanical scored higher in the category of power requirements. All the technologies except the lanyard were assumed to have at least power used to operate the and the capacitive proximity technologies have keys that are questionably non-unique. If the key is not unique it is not possible to sensing of the mass of a hand, the the technology on whenever the firearm is in the user’s hand. In Figure 32 it can be seen that two of the technologies reviewed did not meet the basic scope requirements. Both the finger length proximity Otherwise constantly be using power to look for a user’s A brief today, but that is when the hand is measured on a flat plate, and not a curved surface. More characterization of finger length must be done before any attempt is made at measuring finger length on a firearm grip, Other attempts at measuring unconstrained finger lengths have had limited success. Also, when finger length is used for security applications it has been in the verification and For capacitive not identification process. require some type of power supply. Typically this means batteries. Because power consumption is a concern, it is recommended that the technologies have this figure is that it allows the reader to make their own opinion as to what is important to included. Most of the technologies b mechanism. Some that require a mechanical of the action, such as the key or combination locks, could use that mechanical energy directly or The indirectly to latch the firearm. technologies requiring two batteries were penalized more than those requiring only one. The operational requirements describe fi.mctional requirements. Since for most technologies an ordoff switch is required for power consumption, this also allows it to be used for automatically enabling and resetting of the firearm. Otherwise only a few could meet this requirement. Some technologies require the use of two hands to enable or disable the firearm; one hand to hold the Cost is a factor for all the technologies. mechanical firearm and the other to perform an operation are such as manually commonly entering a code. concerns that some technologies Other have in this area are carrying an item that the firearm would recognize, memorizing an action to enable the firearm, and being able to wear gloves while using the firearm. Other comments are contained in the notes attached to the figure. Biometric systems are less expensive: relatively devices and The electronic are devices will continue to drop in price as the demand rises. The ability to operate and survive through various environments is a challenge to many of the technologies. must be able environment keys have the advantage over any simple available. The they discharging to All the technologies survive associated with the the explosive firearm a round. The The technologies that require some type of an optical scanning can biometric key is a permanent part of the user, will not be forgotten at home, does not require two items to be carried like may be required by rings, and is free. A key that is attached to an external device such as a ring distort light: dirt, contaminants, frost, perspiration. Some have specific concerns such as noise for a voice recognition system. With proper packaging the technologies key that comes from an external device. could be lost forgotten, or stolen. If it is not being worn the firearm will not fire. The uniqueness of these devices controlled by manufacturer the be upset by environments that can block or should be able to survive most environments. must also be so that duplicate keys are not available. The discriminators main function is to authenticate the key. The discriminator needs to be able to read the key without concern of special alignment or movement between the two. It also has to be able to retain the list of authorized Most of users for the particular all it has to have firearm. a low fafse acceptance and false rejection rates. The interface requirements that were ranked dealt with the existence of industry standards for the technologies. Most technologies do not have industry standards: each manufacturer uses a proprietary interface to communicate between their discriminator and their key. This means that their product does not work with any other manufacturer’s device. This various things is not unlike the locks on Even though locks today. operate on the same principles, people have to carry a string of keys each one specific to a single or a small number of locks. The goal for a smart gun product is to have a standard interface. 113 ~l@=A+ IO=* “f! G o .= S m “42 Updated Engineering ~ ~g u: Requirements ~ m Radio Frequency Tag 0 SAW Tag @ ~~ AU k s~ & o @ . @ . Active Tag @ * . ● ~ @ Touch Memory @ @ . @ Fingerprint @ 0 ● @ Magnetic Encoding (A) @ . . Bar Code Capacitive Proximity @ @ ● @ @ . @ @ ~ O ● @ @ @ ● @ ● Lanyard @ z @ O “ Finger Length 8,9,10,11 @ o s ~ Voice Recognition 8,9,10,11 @ @ h ● @ O @6 ● @ o @ Combination Lock 0 0 0 6 6,7 10,11,12,13,14,15,16 9,10,14,17,18 8,15,18,19,20,21 9,10,14,15,18,20 @ glo1418 Z. ,,, , @ Key Lock IO=D I 8 z !s .- @81011 >, Remote Control Magnetic Encoding (B) Io=c 8,11,15,21,22,23 8,18,19,20 @ o ● 24,25,26,27 24,25,27 24,25,27,28 24,25,27,28 24,25,27,28 29 24,25,27,28,30 29,31 @ 32 ● 8,18,19 ~012131415162021 ,>, ,>, , 24,25,26,27,29,31 o O . ~0121315162021 ,,, ,3, . ● ● 12,13,15,16,20,21,23 0 o o o @ @ 0 24,25,27,28,30 8,9,10,11,18 1 35 35 35 35 35,36,37,38 35,37,38,39,40 35,38,40,41,42 37,38,40,41>42,43 0 0 @ 35,38,39,40 35,37,38,40,42,44 35,37,38 0 33 24,25,27,31 24,25,27,31 24,25,27,31,34 m 83 @ “ 050 @ ● 050 @ “ 050 @ o 050 @ 0 051 @ 0 o 37,38,41,43,45 37,38,41,43,45 ’48 @52535455 ,,, @ 0 053 @ o 053 @ @ @ ● 37,38,41,43,45 i .~ > % ~ 4 ~ c 35,37,40,42 0 m w g w 0 ● ● @ ●=F E “g .% n $ @ ● l@=B “ 48 048 @525357 >, @ ● 0 @56 48 52,53,55,57 053 @ @ @5357 @ @ @5357 @ @ @5357 Figure 32 Evaluation of Technologies With Notes ., NOTES: 1 Not known if fingerlengths are unique over curved surfaces, and not valid for identification. Hand mass is not unique, discriminator is weak. 2 All technologies have problems with their size and/or shape, and the placement 3 of the discriminators on the firearm. (Each of these scores were increased by.2 to show some distinction between them.) Most technologies require power for at least the discriminator and the latch. 4 Two batteries are needed. 5 May be entirely mechanical system. 6 Possible electronic keypad and or latch. 7 Some type of on/off switch is necessary to simulate passive operation; to allow 8 the system to reset turn off, or disablq to signal when to take a reading and conserve power. A key may need to be worn on each hand. 9 10 Must remember to carry the key 11 Key may be read from some distance. The distance needs to be controlled. 12 Must manually e%er key, this takes time, efforl and the key must be readily available. 13 Two hands may be required for enabling aocVordisabling the firearm (one for firearm, other for the key). 14 The technology itself may be used as an err/off switch. 15 Activation and/or discrimination may be too slow (possible up to seconds). 16 Will not automatically sense new user. 17 Electrical contact required for communication between key and discriminator. 18 Wearing gloves could be a problem. 19 Must store biometric from each hand. 20 Near contact required to read key. 21 Enrollment of a new user with unique key maybe time consuming. 22 Must be able to speak to enable firearm. 23 The key must be memorized. 24 Key could be transferred. 25 Key is an external device that has to be carried. 26 Key could be made semi-permanent part of body. 27 Manufacturer would have to control keys for uniqueness to be maintained. 28 Key is physically larger than many others. 29 Key is not stable, it may change due to time, stress, input direction, or contaminants. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Limited number of unique combinations available. Key is more easily copied. Finger length around a curved surface is not known to be unique. Hand mass is not known to be unique, any item of correct mass could enable firearm. The key must be memorized. Requires a method to retain stored authorized users (non-volatile memory, battery backup.. .). Electrical contact required for communication between key and discriminator. Alignment between key and discriminator must be controlled. Special movement may be required between the key and discriminator (may require movement or non-movement). Template for key storage may be rather large. False rejection rate (FRR) rmd false acceptance rates (FAR) need to be proven. Difticult to obtain the required number of users. Limited discrimination because of limit uniqueness of key. May incorporate mechanical discriminator. Finger length around a curved surface is not known to be unique. Multiple keys may greatly reduce security. Each manufacturer of existing technologies maintain their own standards. One manufacturer’s discriminators may not recognize another one’s key. Some existing standards are not documented or applicable. Mechanical based technologies are most cost effective when dealing with mechanical firearms. Technologies that do not commercially exist were given the benefit of low prices. There is a very large range of prices within the F category. Biometric key is free. Must survive firing environment. Must protect against radio interference. Exposure to water could electrically short the discriminator. Frost could cause problems at cold temperatures. Any substance that can alter the key or discriminator is a problem (mud, blood, etc.). Excessive perspiration could have adverse effects on reading the key. Sensors may crack with shock. Affected by acoustically noisy environments. Affected by external light conditions. ● Rsnking of Tedmologies (w/o 1 importances) i 1 85.9% Technology Figure 33 Ranking of Technologies (without importances) Ranked Technologies (with importances) B+ 86.4% Technology Figure 34 Rankings of Technologies (with importances) 116 FINAL GRADES The following describes the final rankings of the technologies and gives a brief description of reasons for the ranked position. For more detail on the technologies refer to the specific sections contained within this report. The ranking of technologies reveals the relationship between the various technologies compared to how they meet law enforcement officers’ requirements. Figure 33 shows the ordered ranking of the technologies without importances compared to the maximum number of points that were available for the requirements that could be ranked. Figure 34 shows the same information with the importances factored into the numbers. first thing that should be noticed is that score of any technology, when compared to the maximum score possible, is The the highest This reveals that all the in the eighties. technologies have some fi.u-ther development to be done before they can meet the idealistic officers’ requirements. Next, when the two figures are compared, there is very little change due to the importance ratings being included. If they were greatly different this would say that the requirements that are important to both the officer and the smart gun designer overwhelmed the requirements that were not as important. Instead since this was not the case, either the importances were too alike to make a difference or the technologies intrinsically contain the traits needed to meet the important requirements. Most likely it is a combination of the two. For these reasons it is suggested that the values without importances are used as a baseline. In reviewing technologies, the ranked order of the radio frequency the came out ahead. The reasons for this are that the radio waves travel through most substances and therefore are not affected by many of the environments that hindered the other technologies. The radio waves can transmit information through mud, blood, and technologies materials which most other technologies could not. Speed is not a problem, nor is signal integrity since electronics containing error checking codes can check if a valid transmission was received and if not try again. The possible concern for the radio frequency devices is electromagnetic interference that could effectively keep the firearm from receiving the necessary signals. Ranked after the radio frequency devices is the touch memory device. Although in practice the touch memory has problems to overcome, it also has some good attributes. Its strong point is that it is a relatively simple device that can work fast with good discriminating capabilities. Its weaknesses are that it requires a ring to be worn that needs to contact the firearm with an electrical connection to perform its communication. This presents concerns with both alignment and certain environments. Next in order of ranking is fingerprint technology. The reason that fingerprinting is ranked this high is that as a key it is unique and available, assuming gloves are not being worn. The main problem with the fingerprinting technology is any contaminant that could get in between the key and discriminator and prevent a proper reading from taking place. The other concerns are the slow speed to scan and analyze the fingerprint and the cost of the current devices. Magnetic rings are next in order of ranking. Magnetic rings improved when the importances are included in the rankings in part because the magnetic energy itself can be used to turn the firearm on and off, therefore no separate mechanism is needed to conserve battery power. It is possible that a battery would not even be necessary although this is unlikely in order meet other requirements. Problems with magnetic rings are that besides having to carry the ring, the magnets need to be strong (therefore expensive) or large in size. They also have concerns with the alignment of the magnets to the sensors, and other contaminants, as well as through glove * 117 the number of unique codes that can be * produced. Voice recognition is another biometric technology, but in this case the key is not as good as that of the fingerprint. The goal of voice recognition is to detect the vocal tract, but today most systems depend on phonemes. As the voice changes due to various reasons including sickness, stress, or age a person may have a difficult time being recognized. If the system is implemented with a spoken password as a key it means the activation requires a memorized action. In theory finger length, bar codes, and capacitive proximity technologies all have limited potential as a smart gun technology. In practice their implementation, or lack thereof, lowered their ranking. Finger length and hand mass are not know to be unique in the method that a firearm would be used: gripping a curved surface. Research could , reveal the validity of their uniqueness. Assuming they are unique, a method of measuring them needs to be developed that does not depend as much on the exact alignment of the biometric and other environmental conditions. Bar codes need a method to be carried by the user so that the firearm could read the bar code’s information. They are able to be reliably read in normal environments, but any contaminants will interfere with a reading. The three final devices, the lanyard, the key lock, and the combination lock came in last as meeting the requirements for a law 118 enforcement officer’s firearm. These devices are less expensive than the other technologies and they may not require any power source. The problem these technologies have is that they do not automatically enable the firearm for the user but require the user to perform an action. The action must be performed with an external item that is not as easily carried as a ring, and may even require a memorized event. Other problems include having being able to discriminate between the required number of users while not reducing the security of the firearm, and being able to copy the key. Many of the requirements could not be ranked but are very important to consider. The main reason that some requirements were not ranked is that they were too dependent on the final implementation and realization of a smart gun. Many important requirements that could not be ranked include the entire requirement categories of reliability, service testing, maintenance, adversarial life, strength, latch, indicators, and with other individual requirements. What this means is that while the rankings that were done display the state of the technologies in meeting the ranked requirements, a large piece of the puzzle that is missing is the ranking of the Even the actual product implementation. perfect technology could be improperly implemented and not be successful as a final product. At the same time, by proper implementation of a lower ranked technology it could surpass others as a final product. SECTION 4 SMART GUN TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION MODELS 119 Chapter 13 Development of Demonstration The third objective of the smart gun technology promising project was to demonstrate Five technology’s usefi.dness in models. models were developed to show the strengths and weaknesses of various technologies. The models were referred to as breadboard models which is a term used for experimental models, as opposed to factional prototypes. Another term that is used is demonstration models. The purpose of the models was to be illustrative of the principles showing how a smart gun technology would operate. The models provide a visual aid when discussing the project with law enforcement officers, and others. Having a model that can be seen and touched causes individuals to make comments that might not otherwise be made. The” downside of showing models is that, in being breadboards, some people get the wrong impression that they are very close to a final product. Engineers are also helped through the development of the models by identi~ing areas that require further investigation. The breadboard models do not have components assembled within firearms, although they have features that approximate those of a final product. Each model was built into an identically sized box that held any additional electronics necessary to show how the technology would recognize an individual. The models then would perform an enabling operation that was indicated to the user. Each of the models contained the signals that would be generated by the user to enable or disable the latching mechanism. The breadboard models would have to be built from materials that could be obtained in the cost and time constraints of the project. Existing commercial equipment would have to be modified into configurations that would emulate a smart gun. Technologies were selected not only to show how a particular implementation of a technology would operate, but also to show how a class of technologies with similar By proper characteristics might operate. selection of the technologies to be modeled, the comments that officers made during reviews could be extrapolated to different technologies with similar characteristics. Five models were fabricated: Touch Memory, Remote Control, RF Tag, Fingerprint, and Speech Recognition. Touch Memory Demonstration . 120 The goals for the models were to have a tool that could be transported to various locations for law enforcement officers and others to review. The models would show the concept of how the technology would recognize a user and then indicate the completion of the recognition process. Each model would have the same look and feel so that a person would not be influenced by changes in the model’s appearance. Even though the models were not functional firearms, they had to give the impression to a professional firearm user that the device was acting as a smart gun would operate. Model The touch memory model was built to represent a technology that requires a firearm user to wear an external device like a ring~hat would have constraints on the ring’s alignment. In this way, the model also represented other technologies like magnetic rings and possible The model allows up to four bar codes. different memory devices to be recognized. To operate the touch memory model the user has to wear a ring that contains a memory device that is read when it comes into contact with the reader. The ring’s memory contains an identification number that would be unique to a single firearm user. The discriminator is built into the firearm’s grip. In this case the model includes two parallel rails inset in the grip. The top and bottom rails are of one electrical potential and are spaced with close ‘tolerance so that the touch memory can just be placed between the rails. A second conductor is placed at the bottom of the inset so that an electrical circuit is made when the touch memory is placed in the inset. This allows the memory to be read, and discrimination between authorized and unauthorized codes to occur. The signal generated by the discriminator is used for the actuation of the latching mechanism: on the model this is displayed by a “user verified” light. The trigger of the model is connected to the “weapon fired” light and indicates whether the firearm would have fired when the trigger was pulled. RF Tag Demonstration Model radio frequency (RF) tag model demonstrates how a smart gun would operate with the user wearing an external device such as a ring that does not have strict requirements on the ring’s orientation with respect to the firearm. The model allows up to four different tags to be recognized. The To operate the RF tag model the user hrk to wear a ring that contains a memory device that is read when it comes within range of the reader’s transmitting signal. The ring contains a passive tag in which an identification number that would be unique to a single firearm user is stored. The discriminator is built into the model. In this case the reader transmits an RF signal which powers the tag which in return transmits an RF signal back to the reader. This return signal contains the code that is stored in the tag’s memory. The code is read to determine if the contents of the memory is that of an authorized or an unauthorized user. The signal generated by the discriminator is used for the actuation of the latching mechanism: on the model this is displayed by a “user verified” light. The trigger of the model is connected to the “weapon fired” light and indicates whether the firearm would have fired when the trigger was pulled. Fingerprint Demonstration Model The fingerprint model demonstrates how a biometric technology that requires contact between the biometric and the reader could be used in a smart gun. The model allows up to four different fingerprints to be recognized. The model contains an optical scanner that is used to read the user’s fingerprints. Because of the size of the commercial reader, it is not placed on the grip of the firearm, but on the To control when the base of the model. fingerprint is scanned a switch is placed on the back of the firearm. When this switch is squeezed, as it would whenever being gripped by the user, the fingerprint can be scanned. If this switch is ever released, then the a new scan must be taken. The user must first be enrolled and train the system to recognize his fingerprint. After this, whenever the user’s fingerprint is scanned, the system will attempt to recognize it, Afler a fingerprint is scanned and analyzed by the discriminator, the result is displayed on the “user verified” light. The trigger of the model is connected to the “weapon fired” light and indicates whether the firearm would have fired when the trigger was pulled. Voice Recognition Demonstration Model The voice recognition model demonstrates how a biometric technology that does not require 121 contact between the biometric and the reader could be used in a smart gun. The model allows up to four different voices to be stored and recognized in the speaker recognition mode, and allows unlimited users to be recognized in the speech recognition mode. The model is attached to a small computer that contains a commercial sound card that is compatible with the voice recognition software that is used. The firearm user must wear a high fidelity microphone headset to capture his voice. This is necessary to eliminate as much background noise as possible and to create a repeatable recording not possible with a hand held microphone. In the speaker recognition mode the user enrolls by training the model to recognize his voice by saying any word they desire. When this word is repeated the model attempts to recognize the word and its speaker so the system can be enabled. In the speech recognition mode, the user can say either of two pre-stored “secret” words. The model will attempt to recognize the words and enable the system After the user’s voice is recorded and analyzed by the discriminator, the result is displayed by the “user verified” light. The trigger of the model is connected to the “weapon fired” light and indicates whether the firearm would have fired when the trigger was pulled. 122 Remote control Demonstration Model The remote control model is used demonstrate a different approach to smart technologies. While the general smart concept is to identi@ the user and enable firearm, this approach gives the user command and control authority over firearm. ● to gun gun the the the A simple coded remote control transmitter is used to control the state of the model. The actual controller used is capable of transmitting two different radio frequency signals. One signal enabled only the user’s firearm, the other would enable all firearms within range. The radio frequency receiver is acts as the discriminator. The receiver is built into the model and controls the state of the firearm. For a user to operate this model, he presses one of the buttons on the transmitter which sends a coded signal to the firearm. The discriminator reads the signal and determines if it is from an authorized user. If the signal is recognized then the a “user verified” light is turned on. Now anytime the trigger is pulled, by anyone and not only the authorized user, the gun would fire as shown on the model by turning on the “weapon fired” light. Chapter 14 Reviews of Demonstration The smart gun technology models were made to educate law enforcement officers, and others, by demonstrating the strengths and weaknesses of various technologies. The normal manner for models to be demonstrated was at a conference. Sometimes the demonstration was associated with a formal presentation, other times as part of a display in an exhibit hall. The models were taken to various types of conferences. When possible the models were taken to police departments and demonstrated for ol%cers, A few locations where at least some of the models were Montgomery County displayed include: Training Center (VA), Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Conference (DC), National Sheriffs Association (TX), American Sociefy of Law Enforcement Trainers (NM), Houston Police Department (TX). During presentations of the models, ot%cers would be educated about the specific concepts the models were made to show. Officers would be guided through some of the known concerns with the technologies and then encouraged to offer comments and questions. They were also encouraged not to limit their thinking to the exact technology and features the models included, but to extend the concepts to other similar technologies. Often the officers just asked questions as they were learning more about the models, but even the questions Special features revealed hidden concerns. were included on certain models to ascertain ofllcer’s opinions on other aspects of their requirements not directly related to recognition. Although it is always nice to hear praise from the law enforcement community, it is Aore Models helpful in the early stages of a project to hear ofllcer’s criticisms: officers were encouraged to reveal what they saw and did not like, and what was missing that they wanted to see. This way corrections can be made in the requirements and designs early in the project. Because of this approach the officer’s comments often sounded very negative. The following section will summarize the strengths and weaknesses presented to the officers, and their comments in a paragraph form. The comments are not from any one individual, but are the composite of many officer’s ideas and concerns about the models and technologies. Along with the comments are a simplified response, detailed information about officers’ concerns and technologies are The addressed throughout this report. comments are grouped by models. Touch Memory Demonstration Model Officers examining the touch memory model could readily understand what it would mean to have a smart gun that would require the user to wear a ring that was alignment critical. Remember that these comments are steered towards the touch memory demonstration model, but may apply to any technology that requires an alignment critical ring. The first comment that officers often make has to do with wearing a ring. Officers say that a ring can be forgotten, lost, or stolen. Any of these things would leave the officer without the use of his firearm. Since the police officer’s job is not predictable it may be easier to forget an item that is not part of their uniform. 123 Officers admit that this is an item that they, for. the most part, have complete control over. It would be up to an ol%cer to remember to wear his ring whenever he had his firearm with him. Officers said that once they learned that the firearm and the ring were a pair it would be a normal to always have both items available. It was said that an adversary could incapacitate an officer and take both his ring and gun. This is true, and in a small number of cases this is how officer’s firearms are taken fi-om them in the first place. The typical scenario does not occur in this manner. Also stated by officers is that many people today do not know how to operate firearms, and some officers have been saved by simply turning on the safety. In the same way, some people would not know that the officer’s ring is critical to the operation of the firearm. Some officers do not wear jewelry while on duty. Items on the hands and arms can become snagged during duty. A ring that snags on a car door or fence could injure the officer, while jewelry that snags another person could injure that person. Many officers currently wear at least one ring, and a watch. Officers also mentioned the necessity of having to wear two rings to be able to fire with either hand. Officers understood that firing with either hand meant that a ring would have to be worn on both hands. criticality of the ring. As the ring for the touch memory model is made smaller, the criticality of the alignment may increase, This is because there are two smaller areas that need to be aligned. The ring needs to be read where ever it happens to land on the grip. Even if the ring is turned so that the contacts are not squarely placed on the grip. With the touch memory model, contacts are present on both the ring and the grip. These contacts must make an electrical connection for communication to occur. This causes concerns that contaminants of any type could interfere with the communication. Gloves could be considered a type of contaminant for this model because they would interfere with the communication. RF Tag Demonstration ● Model Officers examining the RF tag demonstration model could easily recognize the advantage of a system where alignment of the ring was not critical. The benefit of the RF tag was that the firearm would become enabled as their hand approached the weapon, and not after finding the proper grip. This would work even if the officer was wearing gloves. This increased the comfort of many officers, although the officers still had the general same concerns about wearing rings as they had with the touch memory model. Many of the concerns about the touch memory ring came from the large size of the ring and that the ring had to be worn backwards. The ring used with the demonstration model was large: it was a commercially available ring. The reason that the model’s ring had to be worn backward is that the memory device on the commercial ring was located on the outside, but for the memory to touch the reader in the. firearm’s grip it needs to be in the back. A ring can be designed that could greatly reduce the size over that used in the demonstration and have the contacts in the back. The proximity that the firearm could become enabled now became the concern. If the firearms reading range was too great then two problems could occur. First if another officer was nearby while the firearm was trying to read the users tag, there might be contention between which tag is read. It is possible that no tag would be read. Second, when an officer is in a takeaway situation and an adversary obtains control of his gun, then that officer must make sure that his tag is out of range so that the firearm would become disabled. The major concern of the officers trying the touch memory model was the alignment Another concern was the possible interference problems that may exist between common electronic devices and the RF communication 124 required by the firearm. Interference can be caused by any device that can create a signal that is similar, much more powerfbl, or blurs the intended signal that the discriminator is expecting. Contention between two or more tags can be considered as a form of interference. This is a valid concern for all RF technologies. Fingerprint Demonstration Model Officers the fingerprint examining demonstration model were shown how a biometric technology relying on physiological attributes could operate in a smart gun. M@ny of these comments could be applied toward similar technologies such as finger length, or palm prints. The first thing that oflicers would notice is that the fingerprint sensor was not on the model’s firearm. The large size of the technology’s reader immediately became apparent to them. This lead to questioning the placement of the reader on the firearm. Similar to having to wear two rings, if anything other than the trigger finger is used, two readers would have to be placed on the firearm. When using the demonstration model the lengthy amount of time that is required for the scanning and processing of the fingerprint information was seen. The time was too long. Again similar to the touch memory model, concerns were raised regarding the necessity of any a physical touching of the reader. Again ● interfere with the contaminants could discrimination process, but now abrasions to a person’s fingers could also cause interference. Voice Recognition Demonstration Model holds the microphone steady to obtain The effect of repeatable voice recordings. background noise can be seen during demonstrations. Extraneous noise causes a degradation in the discrimination process. Slight variations in the utterance of a word can effect the discriminating capabilities. Both speaker and recognition speech recognition could be tried on the model. The speaker recognition allowed the officer to choose any enabling word he wanted. Even though discrimination is based on the speakers uttering the word, added security could be obtained by keeping this word secret from other individuals. With the speech recognition the password must be kept secret (while being spoken aloud) since the discriminator does not care who says the word, as long as the word is recognized. Another concern is that of the effect of stress on the discrimination of the user’s voice. The officer has to remember the proper words and then be able to say them recognizably independent of whether he is exhausted or excited. Saying a work requires an action by the officer, but this was more acceptable because it did not require the use of the officer’s hands which could be busy during a takeaway scenario. Remote RF Demonstration Model remote RF the Ofllcers examining demonstration model could see that there are other possible methods to formulate a smart gun system. Many officers liked the authority that the remote control offered. Being able to enable or disable the firearm at their command. Ofilcers examining the voice recognition demonstration model were shown how a biometric technology that has behavioral attributes could operate in a smart gun. Comments may be compared to other technologies that have a behavioral component or require the officer to act in a certain manner. The fact that an adversary could operate their firearm if it was taken from them while it was enabled did not bother some, probably because this is equivalent to what they have now. Much of the reason may have had to do with the firearm already being in the enabled state (assuming it was carried that way) and nothing “magical” needing to occur before it will fire. The obvious item on the voice recognition model is the necessity to wear a headset that Some of the magic that some officers are concerned about is the unknown of exactly how 125 the electronics operate. In general the younger officers are more favorable toward any type of high-tech device, whether it is a radio or a firearm, than older officers. More experienced officers have two opinions about this: some say the younger ot%cers have grown up in a high tech world and take it for granted, and others account for it by a lack of experience and” respect for the difficulties of the job. models the officers seemed to expect them. The remote control model was also supplied with an adjustable audible indicator. Indicators did not receive as many comments as the recognition portion of the models. The audible indicators did cause some concerns on both extremes of being too loud to be heard by others, or most likely not being able to be loud enough to be heard during an actual incident. Some apparent contradictions in officer’s comments between the different models are: the ability to carry a remote control but not wear a ring (that other technologies might require); and being able to press a button on the remote to disable the firearm, but not having the time to accomplish other actions that a technology might require, The fingerprint model was fitted with an on/off switch on the rear of the grip. This switch was built similar to the grip safety switch appearing on some pistols. This switch was normally viewed as just another thing that could go wrong with the system, one more link in the unreliability chain. On both the biometric models the enrollment process could be evaluated. It can be seen that the enrollment process, even for a model, can be done simply and quickly and give acceptable results. A remote control can be carried as part of the uniform. This means that the officer does not have to remember to put on an additional piece of equipment (like a ring). In this way officers may think that they are not carrying anything new. In a takeaway situation the officer would have to press a button to disable the firearm. This may be difficult if not impossible in some scenarios. Officers are of varying opinions” whether the capability exists to manually disable the firearm. If the officer does have the capability to perform this action, they may also have other capabilities that they have not considered which could be done to turn on or off the firearm during critical situations. Other Model Items Information was also gathered from officers’ comments on other features that were included on the demonstration models. All the models had indicator lights as a visual means to tell whether the user was recognized. No negative comments were received on the lights, but since they were part of all the Even though the officers’ comments often had a negative content this should not deter others from further investigations into these or other technologies. The technologies used in the models were not developed specifically for a smart gun application. They were made to fit this application in a model that was designed to show both the technologies’ strengths and weaknesses. In this way officers could be educated about both the things they should look for and the things that they should avoid, and smart gun designers and dislikes. ● 126 There are many items that the models could not demonstrate to the officers. A few of these are the technology’s cost, reliability, and adversarial strengths. Items like these will remain a concern for officers until a fieldable prototype is thoroughly tested. could learn from their likes SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS 127 Chapter 15 Conclusions and Recommendations The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) , recognized that a number of officers are being killed each year with their own service firearms. Acting as the principal research branch for the U.S. Department of Justice, NIJ funded Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) to perform research on one method of increasing the security of firearms and reducing these deaths: smart gun technologies. Smart gun technologies are those technologies that could equip a firearm with the intelligence necessary to tell if the user is authorized to discharge the firearm. situation, and while the adversaries are becoming better trained the officers may be becoming overconfident. As many as 19 deaths per year have occurred from an assailant’s use of an officer’s firearm. Fortunately the number of officer deaths during takeaways is decreasing, down to five in the past year. There are numerous possible reasons this that could be researched in more detail, increased awareness of the these include problem, training, increased specialized increased use of security holsters, and the transition from revolvers to pistols. SNL is familiar working in the many areas that should be included in smart gun research: security, safety, reliability, weapons. SNL had previously done basic development activities on smart gun technologies for a security branch of the Department of Energy. A three objective project was developed: 1) find the requirements that a law enforcement officer has for a smart. gun technology, 2) evaluate various existing technologies against those requirements, and 3) develop models to demonstrate how a technology might operate in a smart gun system. An analogy was developed which described the smart gun system as a lock and key. The key is the item that is unique to the officer, the item that the firearm recognizes. The lock consists of the discriminator that determines if an authorized key is present, and the latching mechanism that physically enables or disables the firearm. Validating Finding Officer’s Requirements Having the problem validated helped explain the need for a smart gun technology to officers. The task at hand was obtaining smart gun technology requirements from the officers. Some requirements were found in validating the Takeaway Problem Little previous work could be found that specifically targeted law enforcement firearm takeaways. The FBI and individual states had This project summarized takeaway events. the problem and other research methods, but the primmy source for requirements was a officer’s survey designed to determine attitudes. The goal was to find a set of requirements that would be the ideal smart gun brought together the available research and added a detailed look at other factors that have technology, even if the set was impractical or contradictory. This would be a list of the officer’s wants, which would probably be more since 1979, such as location and types of officers. It was found that no officer is immune to being involved in a takeaway occurred 128 . than they really need. From this list a search for the perfect technology could be started. Ofiicers want their firearm to operate predictably: the firearm must remain reliable in all the environments and circumstances that an To achieve the officer may encounter. acceptance of the law enforcement community the addition of a smart gun technology must not noticeably degrade any of the capabilities that exist in firearms today. It should be able to be used by fellow officers, and it should be able to be fired by either hand. The characteristic properties of size, weight, and shape should not noticeably change. It should remain easy to operate and maintain. Ofilcers like the idea of the smart gun technology being able to fail and still allowing the firearm to fire, even though anyone could fire it. A difllcult set of requirements resulted from the wide ranging opinions of ofllcers. While all the “wants” listed by the officers may not ultimately be met, their needs must be met. Listing requirements in this fashion allows individual technologists the latitude to develop products that meet the needs of officers, as well as create a market niche by incorporating additional features. Evaluating Technologies The wide ranging opinions of officers created a difllcult set of requirements. The next step is to find a technology that can be used in a system to meet their requirements. With the assistance of existing quality techniques, the requirements were qualitative officer’s transformed into a set of quantitative In this way the engineering requirements. individual technologies could be evaluated. fourteen implementations of Fifteen technologies were taken through the entire Each technology was ranking process. assigned a score for each requirement as to the of that available capabilities currently had technology Each technology. characteristics that scored high in individual categories. Mechanical technologies ranked high for low power consumption and being less expensive. Electronic technologies scored high for their ability to discriminate digital codes. Biometric technologies scored high for being unique as a key, However, the evaluation revealed that no technology met all the officer’s idealistic requirements. All technologies can use more dedicated development to tailor their attributes to a smart gun application. Demonstration Models It is easier to obtain comments from people when they have something in their hands that they can touch. Five demonstration models were developed to show conceptual operation of smart gun technologies. The technologies were selected to show how a particular implementation of a technology would operate, and how other technologies with similar characteristics might operate. The models were designed to highlight strengths and weaknesses of the technologies so that officer’s comments could be obtained. The normal manner for models to be demonstrated was at a conference. Officers gave comments about each technology after being educated about the operation of the models. In general officers liked the particular characteristics of each of the technologies that ranked high in the evaluations. The problem being there is not a single system that currently can combine only the best parts of each Officers had concerns about technology. anything that could perceivably go wrong at a This list time that it needed to operate. included: batteries, electronic circuits, and mechanical linkages. This generally covers all possible items. What has to be remembered is that, while it is true that the models displayed these weaknesses, it was the model’s job to bring out these complaints so that some measure of importance between these various items could be obtained. More information on what is, and is not, important to officers can always be used. Final Conclusions Officers are, by the nature of their job, often very skeptical. When it comes to smart gun 129 ● a very ditllcult problem. Fortunately the officer’s actual needs are less than their wants. There are many opinions among officers, but there are few statistically definable facts about what they will ultimately accept. It may take a generation of smart gun systems to come and go before a smart gun is not only common but is favored over a non-smart gun; this is much as it is with other new technologies. It is suspected that if officers can be shown a firearm that recognizes them and it can be proved to them that it is reliable, then it will not much matter what else it does or does not do. Any other features will only be enhancements -- gadgets. First it has to work. technologies they are skeptical of the technology itself. Many are also skeptical of a takeaway ever occurring the themselves, it’s The general the other officer’s problem, consensus among law enforcement officers is that a smart gun is a good idea and could be very beneficial to their job, if... The “if” can be summarized in one item: reliability. Since officers are more likely to use their firearms to defend themselves or others, than for it to be used against them, the firearm must operate every time they pull the trigger. The addition of any item to a firearm will generally make it less reliable. Developing a smart gun that meets law enforcement officer’s idealistic requirements is ,. ● . 130 APPENDICES 131 Appendix Operational A Environments This appendix describes the requirements listed in the existing firearm standards, and from other sources such as firearm manufacturers. The requirements are not separated from the text, but should be obvious to the reader. Due to the severe conditions that could be encountered, both by law enforcement personnel and the handguns that they possess, any smart gun technology must be rugged. The technology may not meet the requirements individually, but must be able to meet them when incorporated into a smart gun system. There are many standards available for firearms. The National Institute of Justice has standards32’33 which establish performance requirements and test methods for firearms to be used by law enforcement officers. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, Inc. also has voluntary industry performance standards34to provide the firearm designer and manufacturer with recommendations for methods to simulate certain conditions where the firearm is subjected to abusive mishandling. Individual companies typ~cally develop their own internal quality procedures to meet and exceed these standards35.When government organizations need to develop a firearm they will develop their own specifications for its design and testingz’. All of these specifications are different and the following requirements were selected based on these current standards. Since the following is an aggregate set of these requirements, references will not be individually listed. Rough Handling and Dropping Shock Police service weapons are occasionally dropped or handled roughly. At these times it is critical that the firearm does not discharge. Generally weapons fall as they are drawn from the holster or returned to the holster. Usually a weapon will be ready to be fired when it is dropped, and generally it is dropped on hard surfaces such as roads, walkways, and inside buildings. The smart gun technology must also survive these drops. The minimum drop test requirement for the smart gun technology is for the firearm to remain fully fi.mctional after a shock pulse type, duration, and magnitude such that the conditions emulate those that would be encountered if a fully loaded firearm were dropped on a 0.5 inch thick steel plate backed by concrete from a height of 4.0 feet. The drop test shock shall occur on each of seven axes, which are defined in Figure A-1, and each shock shall be repeated at hot ( 160” F), ambient (70” F), and cold (-60” F) temperatures. Firing Shock A separate shock environment is associated wit~the firing of live ammunition from the firearm. The smart gun technology shall be filly functional after the smart gun has been subjected to the operating shock environment. The operating shock axes are defined below in Figure A-2. On each axis the firearm shall be exposed to an acceleration signal with a frequency and amplitude content consistent with the firing of live ammunition. The number of test cycles shall be consistent with the service life of the firearm, however, the number of test cycles need not necessarily be equivalent. 132 ● Accelerations on the order of 950 g can be expected during the firing of live ammunition in test setups using fixtured firearms3b. 9 i“ -P I 9 D lb 9 I 9 45 ; Ic I Q 9 % d r I r--- ml Ig Ie Figure A-1. Dropping Shock Axes 2a 1 2b Figure A-2. Operating Shock Axis 133 Service Life The number of live rounds that a firearm must survive varies with the way it will be used. The service life for a military firearm may reach 30,000 rounds. The NIJ only specifies a total of 600 rounds in their testing because they are looking for mechanical failures of the firearm that they have determined usually occur in the first 200 rounds of use. Manufacturers will test a firearm to 5000 rounds during development, while the useful life is expected to be between 10,000 and 15,000 rounds. The smart gun technology must have a service life that meets or exceeds the 10,000 live round capability of the firearm itself, For dry cycle testing the smart gun technology shall be able to authorize the firing mechanism greater or equal fo 100,000 times. Temperature The firearm that the officer in hot and humid Florida carries is the same type of firearm that the officer in Alaska uses. Temperatures vary greatly around North America. The highest temperature recorded in North America, 134 0F, was in Death Valley, California the lowest temperature, recorded in Canada, was -81 “F.37 While these are the extremes, it shows the wide range of operating temperatures that can exist in North America. Typical military electronic requirements list -55 0F to 165 0F, and electronics certified to operate during these levels are available. We see by comparison to the record temperatures that the military temperature requirements are not unrealistic. It is also possible the firearm will self heat given that enough rounds are fired. The smart gun technologies shall be filly functional when the temperature throughout the smart gun system is between -50 “F and 160 “F. Noise Environments Officers will often work in noisy environments. Some of the noise environments that must be dealt with include rock concerts, barrooms, and gun fights. Two examples of noise environment levels are heavy trucks which produce 90 dB at 50 feet, and freight trains that produce 75 dB at 50 feet.38 The smart gun technology must operate during intermittent and constant noise environments up to and including a person’s threshold of pain (approximately 130 dB). Chemical Compatibility The following is a list of substances taken from a specialized military handgun specification. It is included only as a reference list of substances that could come into contact with a firearm. Water Lubricant, cleaner and preservative for weapons and weapon systems, MIL-L-63460D (CLP) 3. Lubricant, semi-fluid (automatic weapons), MIL-L-46000C (LSA) 4. Lubricating oil, weapons, low temperature, MIL-L-14107C (LAW) 5. Lubricating oil, general purpose, preservative (water displacing, low temperature), W-L-800C (PL-S) 6. Aerosol lubricant 7. Cleaning compound, solvent (for bore of small arms and automatic aircraft weapons), MIL-C-372C (RBC) 8. Dry-cleaning and decreasing solvents, P-D-680A, type 1 9. Insect repellent, NSN 6840-00-558-0918 10. Carbon-removing compound, P-C-1 1lD, type 11 11. Trichlorethane solvent 1. 2. . 134 12. Hydraulic fluid 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. . Antifreeze (ethylene glycol) Salt water (20% NaCl) Gasoline Kerosene Diesel fiel Jet fhel, JP-4 Decontaminating agent, STB, MIL-D-12468C (MU) Decontaminating agent, DS2, MIL-D-50030H Miscellaneous Environments The following is a list of other environments taken from a specialized military handgun specification. It is included only as a reference list of environments that a firearm may experience. Waterproof Capabilities Capable of fimctioning after a two hour submersion of the smart gun in sea water at a pressure of 2 atmospheres (depth of 66 feet). Salt Fog Fully fictional after the smart gun has been placed in a salt fog environment for 10 days. The salt fog solution shall be prepared in accordance withMIL-STD-810E (method 509.1). Sand and Dust Capable of operation during exposure of the smart gun to a sand and dust environment. Fully functional after the smart gun has been subjected to 96 hours of continuous exposure to a sand and dust environment. Mud Fully fictional after the smart gun has been subjected to 96 hours of continuous exposure to a mud environment with only hand cleaning and wiping of the smart gun. Surf Environment Fully functional after the smart gun has been subjected to 96 hours of continuous exposure to a surf environment. The test chamber shall emulate conditions encountered in a surf environment: salt water and a sand and dust mixture. Icing Fully fictional afler the smart gun has been subjected to an icing environment until 1/8 to 1/4 inches of ice has accumulated on its exterior, and afier removal of the ice using only tools normally . available in the field. Solar Radiation Fully functional after the smart gun has been exposed to solar radiation for a period often 24 hour cycles. 135 Appendix Smart Gun Technologies Questionnaire 136 Smart Gun Technologies Questionnaire For Law Enforcement Officers The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is concerned by the FBI Uniform Crime Report study citing that 14% of the officers killed between 1981 and 1990 were killed with their own weapon. That means 1 out of every 7 officers who are killed in the line of duty are killed with their own weapon. In it’s effort to help law enforcement officers, the NIJ has asked Sandia National Laboratories to research the requirements for a Smart Gun. The most important requirements come from the law enforcement officers, and other people who would use a Smad Gun. PIease help us determine the correct requirements and features a Smart Gun would contain. We request that you assist us by completing this 10 minute questionnaire and return it in the post paid envelope attached. As appropriate, please fill in the blank, or circle the response that indicates the extent that you agree or disagree with the statements. Please provide any other information or comments you feel would be useful to us in this pursuit. While it is not required that you answer all of the questions, we appreciate and value your responses. What is a Smart Gun? A Smart Gun is a firearm that uses a technology to determine if the person shooting has authorization to use the firearm. In this way the firing of a gun can be limited to the authorized person, such as a law officer. This could eliminate the possibility that an officer’s gun is used against him or her. There are many ways that this can be accomplished. To find out what you want in a Smart Gun, we need your input. Strongly Strongly SMART GUN FEATURES 1. A Smart Gun should look just like existing guns. Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree 1 2 3 4 5 An indicator is needed to show that the Smart Gun can identify me as an authorized user. An indicator is needed to show if the gun is safe or enabled. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 5. I would want to be able to install the Smart Gun device in my existing gun. A Smart Gun has to work if I am wearing gloves. 1 2 3 4 5 6. A Smart Gun has to work with my off-hand. 1 2 3 4 5 My partner, or other authorized people, have to be able to use my gun. I would be willing to wear something such as a ring, or 8. wristband, that my gun would recognize. I would be willing to do something (like press a button on my 9. uniform) to disable my gun if it was taken from me. 10. It is OK to have batteries in my gun. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 11. The Smart Gun’s identification feature should replace my gun’s existing safety mechanisms. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2. 3. 4. ● 7. MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS 12. I think it would be valuable to have a gun that only fires for an authorized person, such as a law officer. 13. If a Smart Gun was available 1would be interested in trying one. 14. My two main concerns about a Smart Gun are: 4 1. ● 2. 137 . 15. What are two ways a Smart gun could cause you problems? 1. 2. FAMILIARITY WITH THE CONCEPT 16. Have you previously heard of a gun that limits it’s use to authorized people? _ Yes _ No (If No, go to number 18) 17. What have you heard or seen? _ Magnetic ring _ Remote control _ Capacitive sensors _ Fingerprint _ Voice Activated _ Other USE SITUATIONS 18. Has a suspect ever taken, or attempted to take, your gun? _ Yes — No (If No, go to number 20) 19. My response to someone taking my gun was based mostly on: (Circle the appropriate number) Survival 12345 Training DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (OPTIONAL) 20. 21. State: 22. Your position/title/rank/job function: 23. Service weapon: (Brand-Model-Caliber) 24. Number 25. Name: 26. Department: 27. Daytime phone: of years in Law Enforcement work: FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS 28. I am interested in being further involved in this project in the following way(s): (If you are interested please complete your name and phone number above.) ● 29. Additional RETURN TO: 87185-0537, 138 comments may be written below _ Face to face interview — Telephone interview Test and evaluation — — Other: if desired. Douglas R. Weiss, Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 5800, Albuquerque, NM Phone: (505) 845-9134, Fax: (505) 845-9888, Email: drweiss@sandia. gov. Appendix c Summary of Preliminary Gun Technology Requirements for a Smart . The following are the identical requirements as found in the text. They are rearranged in this appendix in a topical order. The section of the report that describes the requirement is listed in parenthesis. !. 1. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1.1 FEEL 1.1.1 The addition of smart gun technologies cannot appreciably change the weight, size, or balance of existing firearms. (Characteristics) 1.1.2 The smart gun technology should not affect the carrying of firearms in existing holsters. (Characteristics) 1.1.3 The smart gun technology must not affect the existing trigger pull standards. (Characteristics) 1.1.4 Addition of batteries should not greatly change the characteristics of the firearm, i.e., size, weight... (Power Failure) 1.2 APPEARANCE 1.2.1 The smart gun must have the general appearance of an existing firearm. (Characteristics) 1.2.2 The addition of smart gun technologies cannot add appendages which would appreciably increase snagging compared to an existing firearm. (Characteristics) 1.2.3 Any external device should have optional methods for attachment to the person, i.e., multiple fingers; fingers or wrists; implantable... (External Devices) 1.2.4 Ideally external devices can be attached to existing items, i.e., rings, watches, badges... (External Devices) 1.3 MISCELLANEOUS 1.3.1 The addition of a smart gun technology to a firearm should be operationally transparent to the user. (Simplicity) 1.3.2 The smart gun technology must be applicable to multiple types and brands of firearms. (Multi-Users) CHARACTERISTICS 139 * — 1.3.3 The technology should also be applicable for use on multi-user weapons. i.e., shotguns. (Multi-Users) 1.3.4 Ideally no external devices are needed to operate the smart gun technology. (External Devices) ● 1.3.5 Any external devices must be consistent with other smart gun technology requirements, i.e., reliability, durability, easy to maintain, small, accessible, simple... (External Devices) 2.0 PERFORMANCE 2.1 FUNCTION 2.1.1 A single individual must be able to activate a smart gun technology without assistance from others. (Environment and Circumstances) 2.1.2 The ideal smart gun technology operates without action by the officer. (Unconscious or Incapacitated Officer) 2.1.3 The smart gun technology should become enabled or disabled without action by the officer. (Passive Technologies) 2.1.4 A smart gun technology must operate within the capabilities of an officer in a highly stressful situation. (Works Under Stress) 2.1.5 A smart gun technology must be capable of ambidextrous one-handed operation. (Off Hand) 2.1.6 The smart gun technology must operate while wearing gloves typically worn by officers. (Gloves) . The addition of smart gun technologies must not increase the time of drawing and firing when the decision for using lethal force has been made by any authorized user. (Speed of Operation) 2.1.7 2.1.8 A smart gun technology for law enforcement officers should fail armed, such that the failure of the technology does not inhibit firing of the weapon. (Fail Armed) 2.1.9 The addition of a smart gun technology must not complicate the use of the firearm. (Simplicity) 2.1.10 Smart gun technologies must not be alignment critical. (External Devices) 2.1.11 Proper documentation for operational use must be supplied. (Maintenance) 2.1.12 The smart gun technology should only be operational while in the officer’s hand. (Passive Technologies) 2.1.13 The operational range of any external device must be consistent with other requirements. (External Devices) 2.1.14 Smart gun technologies should be capable of being used by an off duty officer. (Off Duty) 2.2 RECOGNITION 2.2.1 The smart gun technology must properly recognize, and limit the use of the firearm, to the authorized user. (Proper Recognition) “ 2.2.2 The smart gun technology should be capable of being used by multiple users. (Multi-Users) 2.2.3 The technology must operate for a single individual on multiple firearms. (Multi-Users) 140 . 2.2.4 The smart gun technology must operate on the first verification attempt. (Proper Recognition) 2.2.5 For applicable recognition technologies the actual recognition score, rather than a simple gohm-go indication, should be available in a testing configuration. (Proper Recognition) 2.2.6 For applicable recognition technologies, a method of adjusting the recognition threshold by a qualified person is recommended. (Proper Recognition) 2.3 POWER REQUIREMENTS 2.3.1 Ideally the smart gun technology would not require the use of batteries. (Power Failure) 2.3.2 A low power indicator must be supplied if batteries are used in a smart gun system. (Power Failure) 2.3.3 If batteries are used, they must be easily obtained, and factored into the cost of maintaining the equipment. (Power Failure) 2.3.4 Ideally a battery used in a smart gun system would last longer than 1 year. (Power Failure) 2.3.5 The minimum lifetime of a battery ~sed in a smart gun system would allow an officer to fire 3 magazines, 10 hours after first indication of a low battery. (Power Failure) 2.4 INDICATORS 2.4.1 A simple test to confirm that the smart gun technology is fimctioning properly must be available. (Indicator) 2.4.2 An indicator cannot be distracting to the officer. (Indicator) 2.5 READINESS 2.5.1 The addition of a smart gun technology must not significantly reduce the circumstances in which the firearm will operate, compared to existing firearms. (Environment and Circumstances) 2.6 SAFETY 2.6.1 The addition of smart technologies should not affect existing gun safety rules. (Safety) 2.6.2 Smart gun technologies must meet the existing law enforcement standards. (Safety) 2.6.3 The addition of smart technologies cannot act as a second trigger. (Safety) 2.6.4 Smart gun technologies and external devices should not cause medical side effects. (External Devices) 2.7 RELIABILITY 2.7.1 The smart gun technology must operate in a predictable manner. (Acceptance by Officers) 2.7.2 The addition of a smart gun technology must not significantly reduce the reliability of the firearm system compared to existing firearms. (Reliability) 2.7.3 The addition of a smart gun technology must not effect the primary use of firing the weapon by the authorized user. (Simplicity) 2.7.4 Simple procedures must be available to allow an officer in the field to quickly reset the recognition system in case of a technical malfunction. (Maintenance) 2.8 SECURITY ● 141 2.8.1 A smart gun technology must not be easily disabled by an adversary. (Fail Armed) 2.8.2 The technology must be such that even with full knowledge of how the system operates it cannot be easily defeated. (Adversarial Compromise of Technology) 2.8.3 The technology used in a smart gun must have a unique characteristic that is not easily replicated, or jammed by an outside source. (Adversarial Compromise of Technology) 2.9 COMPATIBILITY 2.9.1 The smart gun, compared to existing firearms, should not cause a loss of capabilities. (Loss of Capability) 2.9.2 The ideal smart gun technology could b; installed in existing firearms without reducing the existing firearms capabilities. (Retrofit) 2.9.3 Smart gun technologies must meet existing applicable firearm standards. (Meets Law Enforcement Standards) 2.10 TRAINING 2.10.1 Smart gun technologies must cause only minimal additional training, such as transitional training and in service training on proper use. (Training) 2.10.2 Smart gun technologies must enhance and not eliminate weapon retention training. (Training) 2.10.3 Smart gun technologies training must extend beyond the use of technologies and include training for armorers and others as appropriate. (Training) 2.11 MAINTAINABILITY 2.11.1 Maintenance requirements for smart gun technologies must be held to a level that the average officer will do. (Maintenance) 2.11.2 There must be a method for armorers and manufacturers to test the smart gun technology. (Multi-Users) 2.11.3 Individual smart gun product lines should ultimately have interchangeable parts that are not easily disassembled and can be replaceable without special tools. (Multi-Users) 2.11.4 The smart gun must be capable of repeated maintenance without damage or a decrease in performance. (Maintenance) 2.11.5 Department’s armorer or trained personnel should be able to perform most diagnostic tests and repairs. (Maintenance) 2.11.6 The technology should be upgradable when the next incremental version of the technology is introduced. (Maintenance) 2.11.7 Batteries should be easily replaceable, 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL 3.0.1 The smart gun technology must operate in all likely environmental conditions. (Environment and Circumstances) 3.0.2 The remainder of the Environmental requirements are found in Appendix A. 4.0 EXTERNAL 142 EQUIPMENT even in the field. (Power Failure) 4.0.1 Ancillary equipment needed must be identified. (Control and Infrastructure) 5.0 MISCELLANEOUS 5.0.1 ~eadditional production costtoi~o~orate asmti@n technolo~to not add more than approximately $50 to the purchase price. (Cost) 5.0.2 Any additional costs associated with the use of smart gun technologies should be minimized. (Cost) 5.0.3 The limitations of smart gun technologies must be made known so the technology is not declared the end all solution to the problem of weapon takeaways. (False Security) 5.0.4 Recommendation of special procedures must be listed. (Control and Infrastructure) 5.0.5 A systematic test program must be performed before actual field testing a smart gun technology which at a minimum includes studies of long term performance issues, and design failure modes and effects analysis. (Proven Thorough Testing) afirem should 143 . Appendix D Patents The following are a few of the patents that exist pertaining to smart gun technologies and systems. This list is given as a place to start looking for references: the list is not intended to be a complete record. No endorsement is being given by being listed, as well as no disapproval by being absent. . Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Inventor 2: Title: Abstract: 03939679 (also see 4003 152) 02-24-1976 Barkeq James N. Cartwright; Edward A. Safety system Normally disabled electrical and mechanical devices are caused to be enabled to operate by remote control signals having predetermined distinctive characteristics, such signals originating from enabling control equipment transported by an authorized person or persons. Receiving equipment providing output enabling signals only in response to received signals having the predetermined distinctive characteristics is preferably made integral with the mechanical or electrical devices involved and is coupled through appropriate electronic or electromechanical devices to the disabling means in the mechanical or electrical devices to be enabled. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 03978604 (also see 4067132,4110928,4135320, 4154014) 09-07-1976 Smith; Joseph E. Trigger inhibiting mechanism. Trigger safety device for firearms is provided having a pivotally mounted magnetically attractable bar positioned on the inside of the handle adjacent the trigger, with the bar directed toward the trigger or on the rear of the trigger, with the bar directed toward the handle. When the pin is oriented centrally, sufficient movement of the trigger is inhibited to prevent firing. The bar is mounted in a non-magnetizable casing. The user of the gun, by wearing a magnetic ring, displaces the bar from its central orientation and allows for sufficient movement of the trigger for firing. Patent number: Issue Date: 04105885 08-08-1978 144 Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: Orenstein; Henry Hand operated instruments having non-magnetic safety switch Operator controlled devices in the form of hand operated instruments in which a ring worn by anoperator is configured to be insertable into a recess in a hand holdable portion of the instrument. The recess includes a fixed contact configuration that is engagable by a non-magnetic bridging contactor on an outer peripheral face of the ring, so that the instrument becomes operational when the contactor is inserted into the recess and engages the fixed contact configuration. Patent numbe~ Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 04136475 . 01-30-1979 Centille; Edward E. Safety device for firearms The invention provides a safety device for firearms wherein a key operated lock actuates a locking pinto lock the firing mechanism. The locking pin is controlled by a rack and pinion gearing linkage which moves the locking pinto alternately engage or disengage a trigger seat. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 04162586 07-31-1979 Pachma~, Frank A. Gun with cushioned grip safety a gun having a pistol type handle with a trigger at the front of the handle and a grip safety at the back of the handle mounted for limited pivotal movement and acting to prevent actuation of the trigger except when the grip safety is squeezed forwardly, and with the back surface of the grip safety being formed as a layer of cushioning material for contacting the user’s hand Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 04261127 04-14-1981 Karkkainen; Alpo Safety lock for firearms The invention relates to a device for locking a firearm preferably provided with a wooden stock (1) comprising a so called pistol end. the locking device according to the invention comprises a cylinder lock (4) mounted from beneath into the pistol end of the stock (1) behind the trigger (2) and mechanical means preferably comprising a flexible shafi (5) for transmitting the movement of a turnable element of the cylinder Lock from the cylinder lock (4) to a member (6) essential for the function of the firing device of the arm. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 04354189 (also see 04488370) 10-12-1982 Lemelson; Jerome H. Switch and lock activating system and method A system and method are provided for opening a lock or activating a switch by electronically controlled means. In one form, a finger ring is provided which contains a code recording supported within or adjacent the crown thereof. when the hand of the person wearing the ring is held near a reading device, such as to dispose the crown within a receptacle containing the reading device, the code is ● * 145 automatically read and electrical signals generated thereby are applied to close or open an electrical switch or operate a motor or solenoid For opening a lock and/or drive a door to open. If the signals generated in reading the ring recording is a code, they maybe applied to a comparator for operating the lock or switch if the code is an enabling code. The reading device may comprise a photoelectric cell or bank of cells adapted to read variations in reflectivity of the ring code. In another form, the ring may contain an electronic circuit or devices which generate a code in the presence of a radiation field generated in the vicinity of the receptacle for the ring upon sensing the presence of the ring. In another form, the ring may contain a battery and electronic circuit means for generating the enabling code when a switch is closed. In another form, the combination of the code generating means of the ring and a separate circuit such as a circuit card, may be required to enable the switch to close or the lock to open. Improvements are also provided in the constructions of electronic keys in the configurations of finger rings, wrist watches, cards and the like, for use in switch and lock activating systems, security and transaction systems and the like. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 04457091 07-03-1984 Wallerstein; Robert S. Firearm safety lock A firearm combination safety lock is disclosed. The safety lock includes a plurality of independently actnatable members, which in the preferred embodiment, are four push button switches connected to an electronic circuit. The electronic circuit compares the sequence in which the buttons are pushed and will operate an interlock means when the sequence matches a predetermined sequence. The pushbuttons are preferably provided in the finger grip of the handle of the firearm. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 04467545 08-28-1984 Shaw, Jr.; Frederic A. Personalized safety method and apparatus for a hand held weapon A hand held weapon is fitted with a safety device responsive to the palm or fingerprint of one or more individuals. The safety device is activated by heat sensed when the device is hand held. Unless the palm or fingerprint of the person holding the device matches a prestored pattern, a blocking safety mechanism, normally preventing operation of the weapon, is maintained in its “blocking state” and the weapon will not fire. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: 04563827 (also see04682435) 01-14-1986 Heltzel; James Abstract: A safety system for selectively disabling a firearm which is fired by a mechanical movement is disclosed. The safety system includes a block which is moved between an engaged position whereby the mechanical firing movement is blocked and a disengaged position whereby the mechanical firing movement is not blocked. The block has a bearing surface which engages a relatively immovable 146 Safety system for disabling a krearm part of the firearm when the block is in the engaged position. A moving device is also provided for moving the block from the disengaged position to the engaged position, with the moving device normally biasing the block to the disengaged position. A remotely controlled actuating device for actuating the moving device includes a transmitter which selectively transmits a signal and which is designed to be carried by the operator of the firearm. A receiver is located adjacent the moving device. The receiver receives the signal from the transmitter and operates the moving device. Where the mechanical movement includes a member which moves parallel to a metal surface, the block is an elongate bar which is extendable through an aperture in the metal surface, The block can also be a lever which is pivoted intermediate two opposed ends. Conveniently, the moving device is a solenoid. Patent numbe~ Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 04672763 06-16-1987 Cunningham; Jerry M. ‘ Safety device for preventing the unauthorized firing of a weapon by releasing the hammer spring A safety device for preventing the unauthorized firing of a weapon, such as a pistol. The device has a hammer, a handle, and a leaf spring inside of the handle. The leaf spring places tension on the hammer, when the weapon is enabled. The leaf spring is held by a stop member, which is movable. When the stop member is moved to a lower position, the spring is released, and the weapon is disabled. The stop member is moved by a strap and a ring, connected to the stop member. The handle must be taken apart in order to return the spring and the stop member to the enabled condition. 04730407 03-15-1988 Decarlo; Dean S. System for converting firearms to electrical ignition A system for converting firearms to electrical ignition for firing of electrically primed ammunition. The system includes a drop in module to replace the conventional trigger, hammer pin, and other firing mechanism parts, and which has either included or separate structure to replace conventional firing pins. The module contains a safety tinterlock system, indicator lights, an on-off switch, an actuator switch, ammunition contacts and appropriate connecting circuitry to a power supply means. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Inventor 2: Title: Abstract: 04763431 08-16-1988 Allan; Robert E. Allan; Robert M. Handgun locking and unlocking apparatus Locking devices for guns operate to lock the guns against inadvertent or unauthorized firing, and at the same time enable quick and controlled unlocking of guns, to enable their use, as against home intruders. Patent number: 04833811 147 Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 05-30-1989 Wilkinson; Earl Safety for pistols a safety for hammer-equipped pistols, which includes a lock pin slidably mounted in the handle of a pistol, a companion lock pin spring biasing the lock pin inwardly of the handle toward the hammer, a locking rod slidably mounted in the handle in angular relationship with respect to the lock pin, the upper end of which locking rod is adapted to norqally engage a seat provided in the lock pin and a release pin normally located in a release pin seat provided in the base of the handle, for engaging the opposite, or lower end of the locking rod and preventing relative movement between The locking rod and the lock pin. in a preferred embodiment, one end of a release pin cable is attached to the release pin and the opposite end of the cable is secured to the pistol holder, wherein seizure and extension of the pistol beyond the length of the cable pulls the release pin from the release pin seat and allows the locking rod to slide downwardly inside the pistol handle and facilitate forward projection of the lock pin responsive of the lock pin spring and locking of the hammer to prevent firing of the pistol. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 04970819 11-20-1990 Mayhak; Gary D. Firearm safety system and method Actuation of the firing mechanism of a firearm is prevented until grip pattern sensing means on the handgrip of the firearm supply to a microprocessor signals corresponding to a grip pattern stored in a programmed simulated neural network memory. All of these components are contained within the firearm. programming of the neural network memory is accomplished by using a host computer with a simulated neural network to train that network to recognize a particular grip pattern using grip pattern sig~ls generated by the grip pattern sensing means as the sensing means is repeatedly gripped for the person for whom the firearm is to Be programmed. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 04987693 (also see 5090148,5140766,5229532, 5335521,5408777, 5457907) 01-29-1991 Brooks; Frank Firearm safety mechanism A firearm safety mechanism includes a lock with engagement structure. The engagement structure has a locked position in which the engagement structure operatively engages a portion of the firing mechanism to prevent discharge of the firearm. The engagement structure also has an unlocked position permitting operation of the firing mechanism. The lock includes selection structure permitting movement of the engagement structure from the locked position to the unlocked position upon the reception of a predetermined selection criteria. The firearm can be locked against unauthorized use and unlocked by an authorized user without resort to external accessories. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: 05016376 (also see 5123193) 05-21-1991 148 Pugh; Kenneth J. ● Title: Abstract: Magnetic actuated firearms locking mechanism This invention teaches a ;afety for preventing unauthorized firing of a weapon (h) of the type having a trigger (19) and mechanical firing mechanism (21) for firing the weapon. A solenoid (s) controllably actuates or deactuates upon the application of an electrical signal. A decoder (d) is mounted with the weapon for detecting a signal from an authorized user and selectively activating the solenoid upon the signal from the authorized user. Such decoder (d) is electrically connected to at least a power source (p) and to the solenoid (s). An encoder (e) creates the signal indicating that the possessor is authorized to use the weapon. A linkage (1)connects the solenoid (s) and the firing mechanism (f) for controllably enabling or disabling the weapon from being fired upon the desired activation of the solenoid. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Inventor 2: Title: Abstract: 05022175 06-11-1991 Oncke; Ockert P. H. Van der Merwe; Sarel B. SafetY arrangement for firearms A safely arrangement for selectively disabling a firearm is provided. The firearm includes a handle, a trigger, a hammer, and a barrel. The hammer, in an unlocked condition, is movable into a functional position for being actuable by the trigger for striking a magazine causing firing of a bullet and, in a locked condition, is mechanically locked so that it cannot be actuated by the trigger for causing firing of a bullet. the arrangement includes a control unit adapted in the locked condition to lock the hammer and, in the unlocked condition, to unlock the hamme~ an electronic decoder unit adapted to decode input signals and to provide corresponding output signals; an electronic driver stage being adapted on receipt of the output signals from the electronic decoder unit, to cause corresponding operation of the control unit for locking and unlocking the hammer as the case may be; and a keypad unit having a number of key buttons, the key buttons being adapted on operation thereof to provide input signals to the electronic decoder unit when The keypad unit is electrically coupled thereto. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 05042185 08-27-1991 Justice, Sr.; Jerry P. Semi-automatic pistol safety lock apparatus A locking mechanism for a semi-automatic pistol that completely disables the weapon when in the locked position. The mechanism includes a set screw that is inserted in a small hole drilled in the side of the pistol side plate behind the trigger. the set screw has attached to it a small button such that when the mechanism is in a locked position, the button located on the screw is extended into a blind hole formed in the hammer, thereby preventing pivotal movement of the hammer, and consequently preventing operation of the trigger and the slide. When the mechanism is in an unlocked position, the weapon functions as originally intended by the manufacturer. Patent number: Issue Date: 05062232 11-05-1991 149 Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: Eppler; Larry D. Safety device for firearms A safety device for firearms having trigger interrupting means operably connected to the trigger mechanism of the firearm. The code generating means worn by the user or operated by the user generates a signal which is detected by detection means on the weapon to disengage the trigger interrupting means to permit the weapon to selectively be fired by an authorized user. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 5068989 (also see 5192818,5423 143) 12-03-1991 Martin; John M. Mean for reducing the criminal usefidness of dischargeable hand weapons Methods and apparatuses for reducing the criminal usefulness of a dischargeable hand weapon wherein the weapon is temporarily or permanently linked to a relatively heavy, bulky or long object by either a cord, cable, or signal, wherein the weapon may be prevented from discharging immediately after or a certain amount of time after it becomes unlinked from the object and wherein the object must be moved with the weapon when the weapon is taken to a relatively distant location for discharging, thereby effectively reducing the portability and concealability of the weapon for distant locations where it is more likely to be used for a crime. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 05168114 12-01-1992 Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Inventor Inventor Title: Abstract: 150 2: 3: Enget; Jerome M. Automatic gun safety device An automatic gun safety device is provided which consists of a mechanism for transmitting radio signals. Another mechanism is built into a firearm for receiving the radio signals. A solenoid is electrically connected to the receiving mechanism and is normally in engagement with a trigger of the firearm, so that the firearm can only be fired, when the transmitting mechanism is within range of the receiving mechanism and a properly coded signal is being received by the receiving mechanism. The receiving mechanism which is housed within the fire arm will activate the solenoid to disengage with the trigger of the firearm, allowing the trigger to be dep~essed to fire the firearm. 05171924 12-15-1992 Honey; Michael T. Osborne; Kendall S. Ruston; Richard D. Flagged firearm lock method and apparatus The invention comprises a system for facilitating the locking of a firearm to prevent its unauthorized firing. The system provides an easily noticeable flagging device to facilitate visual affirmation that a firearm lock is engaged; and the firearm cannot be discharged until it has been unlocked. The locking system utilizes a locking wedge that activates a set of locking spurs so as to engage the interior of the firearm and disable the firing mechanism. The system provides for quick and simple enabling of the firearm to facilitate a quick response in an makes use of locking device that can be inserted or a firearm using a key rod. The locking device is not readily apparent or accessible externally to an observer. The system maybe used to lock a firearm that is either loaded or empty, although it is obviously preferable and a proper precaution to apply the system only to empty firearms. emergency. The system extracted through the barrel of Patent number Issue Date: Inventor 1: Inventor 2: Title: Abstract: 05235763 . 08-17-1993 Nosleq Robert A. Lewis; William 1. Key-actuated safety for handgun A key actuated safety mechanism is described for mounting in the hand grip of a revolver or other hand gun. The safety mechanism includes a rotary operator having an eccentric projection which upon rotation to a locked portion directly engages the hand gun firing mechanism as a stop to prevent firing, or is coupled too such firing mechanism by a lock bar which acts as the stop. An improved key actuated rotary lock for use with such safety mechanism is also described having a cam actuated, spring biased plunger operated by the key inserted into an opening through such plunger for enabling the lock to be rotated between locked and unlocked positions. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 05303495 04-19-1994 Harthcock; Jerry D. Personal weapon system A personal weapon system comprises a microprocessor-controlled and electronically fired “blow-forward” handgun with a firing parameter memory device, digital security lock and safety device, directional compass, electronic rounds counter, integral keyboard and liquid crystal display, laser designator capability, programmable piezo-resistive trigger, and high frequency A.c. ignitable Primer. A microprocessor receives information from a real time clock, hall-effect rounds counter, and an integral hall-effect compass. The processor displays this information on the lcd display for the operator. When a round is fired, the microprocessor records time and date, number of rounds fired, and direction of firing for crime lab analysis. The trigger pressure required to fire the handgun is programmable by the operator, and a corresponding trigger detonation mark is displayed on the lcd display. Trigger pressure exerted by the operator is displayed on the lcd display as a bar graph which lengthens in proportion to trigger pressure applied. The weapon fires when the bar graph reaches the trigger detonation mark. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 05361525 11-08-1994 Bowes; Kenneth E. Gun safety lock An improved gun safety lock is disclosed which employs a barrel key to enable the firing mechanism of the gun. The barrel key is inserted in the handle of the gun to allow the hammer of the weapon to be moved into a cocked or firing position. The barrel key ~ unique for each gun. The barrel key is held in the gun 151 by retaining lugs. A lanyard a~ches to the barrel key on one end and to the owner of the gun on the other end. Pressure on the lanyard causes the key to pull out of the gun and thereby disables the gun. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Inventor 2: Title: Abstract: 05392552 02-28-1995 Mccarthy; Joseph Hochstein; peter A. Lighted locks for firearms An electronic firearm lock (10) includes a housing (18) and a locking plate (28) which are locked together rendering the trigger (12) of a firearm (16) inaccessible. The housing (18) includes a locking lever(36) which engages a sawtooth surface (34) of the locking member (32) of the locking plate (28). The lock is unlocked by entering an input code via keypad (44). The keypad (44) is illuminated prior to the pressing of any button (100) by touching two conductors (62) simultaneously by the same object, i.e., a finger allowing the operator to see the keypad (44) before the needing to begin entering an incorrect code. an alarm transducer (82) signals both when a plurality of incorrect codes are entered, indicating an unauthorized person was attempting to access the firearm (16), and when the voltage level of the battery (74) is low + Patent 05419069 05-30-1995 Mumbleau; Dean W. Mumbleau; Craig T. Firearm locking mechanism A firearm locking mechanism comprising block or body having a conventional pin-tumbler or cylindrical lock mounted generally vertically therein. The block or body is received within the exposed area between the breech and open breech block in a firearm directly above the magazine, with an engagement member connected to the bottom of the lock being received within the top of the magazine and rotated by the lock. The engagement member engages beneath and between the cartridge-retaining surfaces at the top of the magazine to secure the lock and body to the top of the magazine, thereby preventing the breech block from closing or the magazine from being removed. The locking mechanism similarly prevents moving the firing pin assembly into proximity with any cartridge remaining in the barrel or magazine. number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Inventor Title: Abstract: 2: Patent number: Issue Date: 05433028 07-18-1995 Inventor 1: Novak; Vicente N. Inventor Title: Abstract: 2: Fard; Amir H. F. . Gun’s trigger locking mechanism This device selectively locks the trigger of a firearm by the action of a hollow pin that, pushed by a spring, fits inside a cavity made at the bottom of the trigger. This hollow pin is welded to a flat steel bar that fits along a groove inside the horizontal part of the trigger guard. This trigger guard is made of a nonmagnetizable material. The flat steel bar pivots by the use of a horizontal pin that can be locked at the front of the trigger guard, depending of the needs of the 152 designers of the different guns. This flat steel bar has an up and down motion to lock and unlock the trigger. To release the trigger, the user of the gun wears a flat magnet with a magnetization pattern parallel to its thickness. This magnet should be attached to the exterior surface of the second phalanx of the middle finger of the shooting hand either mounted to a ring or sewn to a glove. In this way the magnet will be located under the trigger guard when the gun is held, and the pulling of the magnet will move the bar and the locking pin (hollow pin) down, unlocking the firearm. If the gun is dropped or taken away from the owner, it will not shoot. Neither will shoot if someone takes the gun unaware of the need of the magnet. Patent numbe~ Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 05448847 09-12-1995 * Teetzel; James W. Weapon lock and target authenticating apparatus A lock and target authentication apparatus for handguns and rifles. the apparatus is designed to fit into handgrips that replace the factory provided handgrips. Flexible membrane circuitry is contained within the handgrips as well as the power source for the apparatus so that the unit does not have to make part of the weapon and can easily be added afterward. The only other modification of the weapon that is necessary is to make a slight change to the trigger assembly or trigger bar. An infra red signal is communicated from a remote transmitter that unlocks a solenoid mechanism that prevents the weapon from being fired. The signal is unique to the weapon. the apparatus also features a target authentication ability so that a number of weapons can communicate with one another to prevent a weapon from being fired at them if that weapon receives a preselectable infra red signal that indicates to the apparatus that the other weapon is a “friend” and not a “Foe”. Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: 05459957 10-24-1995 Patent number: Issue Date: Inventor 1: Title: Abstract: Wirier; Guy T. Gun security and safety system A security and safety me&hanism for a firearm including a disabling unit that interacts with a firearm grip safety in order to enable/disable the firearm. The firearm will remain in a disabled state unless a verification means determines that a firearm user is an authorized firearm user. The security and safety mechanism utilizes voice recognition technology in order to ascertain whether a firearm user is an authorized firearm user. 05461812 10-31-1995 Benneti, Emeric S. Method and apparatus for a weapon firing safety system This invention teaches a novel method of safeguarding and protecting a weapon from being accidentally fired or misused by an unauthorized person. Without a verified pre-registration signal, an arming safety solenoid remains in a fail-safe position, preventing use of the weapon. The electronically actuated solenoid enables the use of trigger only when a valid identification signal is received. The 153 system is comprised of microminiature circuits contained within the grip of the weapon and a ring that is worn on same hand that uses the firearm. :When the weapon is first pickup by the intended user, a switch closure in the grip of the gun turns on a transmitter, which sends a low power, limited range interrogation signal to the finger ring, Upon receipt of this signal, a transponder mounted within the finger ring responds by sending a coded signal that contains a serial number identification. A microprocessor contained within the weapon then compares this decoded signal with one preregistered serial number stored in memory and if the comparison is valid, actuates the arming safety solenoid, allowing the gun to be fired. Arming the weapon for firing can only be accomplished upon receipt of a verifiable identification signal from the finger ring; the finger ring must be worn by user and be within the range of the electromagnetic transceivers and must be within the range of the magnetic metal sensors. 154 . References 1 Commission on peace oillcer standards and training, Callforniapeace of duty 1987-1988-1989, State of California, August 1992, pg. 27. oflcers killed in the line 2 Commission on peace officer standards and training, Calljiornia Peace OJj?lcersKilled in the Line of Duty December 1986, State of California, December 1986. 3 Sandia Capabilities, Sandia National Laboratories, Oct. 1993, pp. 2-3. 4 U.S. Department of Justice, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Law Enforcement Oflcers Killed and Assaulted 1991, Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1991, p. 38. 5 U.S. Department of Justice, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Law Enforcement Oficers Killed and Assaulted 1990, Washington DC: U.S. fiepartment of Justice, 1990, p. 26. 6 Safariland, 1994 Duty Gear Product Guide, Safariland, Ontario, California. 1994. 7 Commission on peace officer standards and training, California Peace O@cers Killed in the Line of Duty December 1986, State of California, December 1986. 8 Commission on peace oftlcer standards and training, Guidelines for Law Enforcement O@cer Safety, Resultingfiom the Study of California Peace O@cers Killed in the Line of Duty, State of California, 1987. 9 Commission on peace officer standards and training, California Peace O@cers Killed in the Line of Duty 1987-1988-1989, State of California, August 1992, pp. 12,27, 54. 10 U.S. Department of Justice. Killed in the Line of Duty, A Stu~ of Selected Felonious Killings of Law Enforcement O@cers, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, September, 1992, p. 40. 11 Information received during a telephone interview with Officer Frank McKee of the San Francisco Police Academy. October 28, 1994. 12 U.S. Department of Justice. Killed in the Line of Duty, A Study of Selected Felonious Killings of Law Enforcement O&cers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, September, 1992, p. 12. 13 U.S. Department of Justice. Unijorm Cr;me Reports, Crime in the United States, 1988, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, August, 1989, p. 232. 14 U.S. Department of Justice. Unijorm Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, 1988, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, August, 1989, p. 234. 15 Commission on peace officer standards and training, CaIl~orniapeace oficers killed in the line of duty 1987-1988-1989, State of California, August 1992, pg. 27. ~6 U.S. Department of Justice. Un#orm Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, 1988, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, August, 1989, p. 237. 155 17 U.S. Department of.hstice. Killed in the Line of Duty, A Study of Selected Felonious Killings of Law Enforcement O@cers, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, September, 1992, p. 14. ~8 U.S. Department of Justice. Killed in the Line of Duty, A Study of Selected Felonious Killings of Law Enforcement Oficers, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, September, 1992, p. 29-30. 19 U.S. Department of Justice. Killed in the Line of Duty, A Study of Se[ected Felonious Killings of Law Enforcement Oflcers, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, September, 1992, p. 31. 20 U.S. Department of Justice. Killed in the Lint of Duty, A Study of Selected Felonious Killings of Law Enforcement Oflcers, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, September, 1992, p. 4. 21 Human Factors and Systems Planning, Bell Laboratories Kelly Education & Training Center, AT&T, 1991. 22 Measuring Customer Satisfaction, Bob E. Hayes, ASQC Quality Press, 1992, p 57. 23 U.S. Department of Justice. Killed in the Line of Duty, A Study of Selected Felonious Killings of Law Enforcement Oficers, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, September, 1992, p. 30. 24 Information received from Colt’s Manufacturing Company, Inc., HYBRID PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION For Research and Development of an OjZensive Handgun Weapons System “Special Operations Peculiar”; Naval Weapons Support Center; Crane, Indiana 47522-5020; Approved 2-5-91, p. 1-13. 25 U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Technology Assessment Program, 38/357 Caliber Revolvers NIJStandard-0109. 00, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, July, 1983, p. 4. 26 U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Technology Assessment Program, 9mm/45 Caliber Autoloading Pistols NIJStaqdard-01 12.01, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, May, 1989, p. 6. 27 U.S. Department of Justice, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Law Enforcement Oflcers Killed and Assaulted 1990, Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1991, p. 49. 28 Information presented by David Boyd, Director, Science and Technology, National Instituteof Justice, at the Law Enforcement Technology for the 21st Century conference, Washington D.C., June 20-22, 1994. 29 U.S. Department of Justice, National Instituteof Justice, Technology Assessment Program, Equipment Performance Report: 9mm and. 45 Caliber Autoloading Pistol Test Results, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, August 1987, p. 10. 30 James P. Holmes, Larry J. Wright, Russell L. Maxwell, A Performance Evaluation ofBiome&ic Ident@cation Devices SAND91-0276, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, June, 1991, p. 7. 31 Information from Smith & Wesson Academy training materials, received July 11, 1994. 156 32 U.S. Dep~ent of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Technology 38/357 Caliber Revolvers NIJStandard-0109. Assessment Program, 00, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, July, 1983. . 33 U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Technology 9mrn/45 Caliber Autoloading A Pistols NIJStandard-0112. Assessment Program, 01, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, May, 1989. 34 Spotiing AITIIS& Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, Inc., American National Standard Voluntary Industry Performance Standards, Criteria for Evaluation of New Firearms Designs Under Conditions of Abusive Mishandling for the Use of Commercial Manufacturing ANSI/SAAMI Z299.5-1990; American National Standards Institute; New York, New York 10018, 1990. 35 Information from Smith& Wesson, QP-07, received July 11, 1994. 36 Extracted from test data received from Colt’s Manufacturing Company, Inc., on November 11, 1994. 37 The New Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, Release 6, Weather Variation and Extremes, Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc. 1993. 38 The New Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, Release 6, Pollution, Environmental, Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc. 1993. 157 Bibliography R. Adams, Reinhold, D. Barvenik, identification R. Renick, and R. Tun, Personalized sponsored by Johns Hopkins G. R. Doddington, Speaker Recognition R. E. Floyd, Van Nostrand Access People a Safety Equipment, Center. by February 1994. their Voices, Proceedings of 1985. Small Arms User Validation Control Anti-Fire in IDSystems, - Identi@ing the IEEE, Vol. 73, No. 11, November GunID Handgun Injury Prevention in RF/ID Technologies, A Short Course M. Elkins, and data collection, 1990. student project D. Black, of automatic Sourcebook NY. with RF/ID, System. lDSystems, October 1993. K. T. Gee, S. H. Scott, M. G. Wilde, and S. E. Highland, Overview of Locking Systems, Sandia National Laboratories report SAND9S-2030. D. Guinier, Identification by biometrics an introduction and a survey, SIGSAC Review, Summer 1990. J. Hollingum, Automated Fingerprint Analysis Sensor Review Offers Fast Verification, Vol. 12. No. 3. 1992 pp. 12-15. J. P. Holmes, L. J. Wright, Identification Devices, C. Jennings, Biometrics and R. L. Maxwell, Sandia National - A Perfonrmnce Laboratories Evaluation of Biometric report SAND 1-0276. When The Person Is The Key, Sensor Review, Vol. 12 No. 3.1992 pp9-11. M. F. Lewis, Wave Theory C. Loughlin, On Rayleigh Waves and Application. Tutorial: and Related Propagating Editors: Acoustic Waves, in Rayliegh- E. A. Ash, E. G. Paige. colour and colour measurement, Sensor Review, April 1990. A. Macintyre, Magnetic Field Sensor Design, Sensor Review Vol. 11 No. 2, 1991, pp. 7-12. P. MacGregor and R. Welford, Veincheck Lends A Hand For High Security, Sensor Review Vol. 12. No. 3.1992 pp. 19-23. L. H. McCarty, Electronic System Makes Remote Identification, Design News 10-7-85. B. Miller, Vital signs of identity, IEEE Spectrum, E. Newharn, The Biometrics Report, 1995 February 1994. “ J. R. Parks. Biometrics: the people sensors, Sensor Review, April 1989. R. D. Peacocke and D. H. Graf, An Introduction to Speech and Speaker Recognition Computer, August 1990 A. P. Ph.unrner, Colour makes it easy, Sensor Review, July 1990. D. R. Richards, ID Technology Faces the Future, Security Management, April 1994. J, R, Rodriquez, F, Bouchier, and M. Ruehle, A Performance Evaluation of Biometric Identifications Devices, draft Sandia National Laboratories report SAND93-1 930. P. E. Ross, I can read your face, Forbes, December 19, 1994. 158 LZE_E R. B. Starkey, The Human Face - A Unique Pattern?, Sensor Review Vol. 12. No. 3.1992 pp. 16-18. D. Tynan, What you say is what you get?, PC World, January 1995. D. White, Harnessing the Hall effect for today’s technology, Sensor Review, April 1989. L. J. Wright, Coded Credentials - A Primer, Sandia National Laboratories report SAND 880180. AIM USA. Internet home page containing general information on automatic data collection. AM Sensors, Inc. Advertising information on Alphasensors, Amtech. Advertising information on Intellitag products. Association for Biometrics. Internet home page containing general information on choosing biometric technologies. Captive Breeding Specialist Group. Working group on permanent animal identification. Memorandum test report on transponders. Dallas Semiconductors. Automatic Identification databook, DataLogic, Inc. Data book on Automatic Identification. Digital Biometrics Inc. Advertising information on fingerprinting Dragon Systems. equipment. Advertising information on Dragon Dictate. Fuhon Arms Inc. Advertising information on the SSR-6. Gun safety system, applauded as ‘revolutionary,’ fails to trigger response from larger agencies, Law Enforcement News, Vol. IV, No. 20. November 27, 1978 Phillips Semiconductors. Advertising information on RF identification transponders. Proposed European Standard for Biometric Technology Projects Testing & Evaluation: Glossary of Terminology. Sponsored by the Association for Biometrics, draft working document, February 18, 1994. Radio Frequency Identification book. RFID Technologies Supertag. Reference Book. Innovative Insights, Inc. Unpublished CC. Internet home page containing general information on the TEK Inc. Advertising information on Tek Touch System. Texas Instruments. Advertising Information on TIRIS tags. TrueFace Applications. Internet homepage containing information on TrueFace. TRW. Advertising information on VeraFind automated identification system. 159 Distribution: 3 Raymond L. Downs National Institute of Justice 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20531 1 MS9018 MS0899 MS0619 MSO1OO 5 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 160 MS0769 MS0762 MS0782 MS0759 MS2643 MS2643 MS0509 MS0537 MS0537 MS0537 Central Technical Files, 8523-2 Technical Library, 4414 Print Media, 12615 Document Processing, 7613-2 For DOE/OSTI 5800 D MiyOShi, D Spencer, 5861 (one for Criminal Justice library) F Bouchier, 5848 P Bortniak, 5845 D Plummer, 2643 K Tweet, 2643 D Williams, 2300 MMundt,2314 DBrandt,2314 D Weiss, 2314