Hack This Computer And Shoot Someone Dead

Hey uh Guus.... Have you ever by chance heard of something called HUNTING? Some of us go out in the woods and sit for 3-4 hours with a 30-06 not made or developed to "kill someone" and shoot a nice 6 point deer at 8 a.m... You have obviously never experiened this... In my area of the country, everone owns a gun, and no one uses it on people. Most everyone around here hunts, yet there are very few hunting related deaths. Guns are NOT just used to kill people.

How many of you people bullshitting in this thread actually know what the hell you're talking about when it comes to guns? How many of you have fired a rifle? How many of you have shot an automatic weapon?

And HTRegz, Your statement concering America's Police Officers was right on the nail from my expereicnes.... I have met about 10 good city cops in my day, and at least 100 bad ones. State troopers however, are almost always good people. I have very little respect for most city cops, but a high level of respect for Troopers...

Again, a matter of function versus usage, although I grant you that you could see a gun as an evolution of the 'food-gathering' tools. Anyhow, with our modern food-distributing facilities (yey Walmart et al) that function of a gun is totally outdated, and, in my opinion, should not be taken into account in this debate.

Basically: If you hunt for food, you have a point. If you hunt for leisure, you don't. I think you can safely assume that everyone with access to the internet doesn't have to hunt for food to keep alive.

And with that, we're back were JP started: a gun hooked up to a website making it possible to hunt over the internet.

To be totally honest if I want to kill something from my arm chair I would just play CS or unreal (can beat hearing that wonderful phrase head shot). I dont really see how you could get any pleasure from using the space bar to fire a gun. how would you even know you are firing the gun?

Sorry, had to get this off my chest --

Quote:

---

You're lucky I don't still run this place, that's all I have to say.

---

But ya don't, so shut the **** up.

Quote:

---

I'm done wasting my time with this hornet's nest of dumbasses.

---

Yeah, shame on the dude who created it all, right? ****in child, you're one of the hornet's yourself.

Quote:

---

Later All (admins are welcome to remove my account).

---

I second that. Please remove his account, as he doesn't seem to contribute much anymore other than the critisizim of/degrading of other members. Nor is he wanted, might I add...

I'm sorry guys, but I REALLY had to get that off my chest. I feel better now. :) Oh and by the by, this thread should have been closed after Guus said this which summed it ALL up:

Quote:

---

Giving access to a gun over the internet gives every idiot and his brother access to a deadly weapon. Bad thing. Shouldn't be done for whatever reason. Period.

---

'Nuff said, no?

Flame wars (and it would be nice to see discussions occassionally rather than "ya'll just biatches" being yelled at each other in some faashion) aside, this idea does bring up or highlight the issue with the Internet: anyone can use it and there is no regulation as to what goes on it. That's a reality. The question is if someone does use it questionably or creates something that may be intended for a particular way, how can we be guaranteed that this won't be used for malicious purposes?

Let's take this idea as initially presented. Pretty straightforward. And, in some regards, not that bad of an idea. That said, what if we took it further (and don't say it's "impossible" -- nothing is impossible these days): how about a mini-cam attached to a robot (think of those the compete in the Robot Wars) with a gun attached? Now, a person -- who perhaps is confined to a wheelchair -- can "go through" the bush to hunt deer, etc. The robot is controlled via the Internet on a "Play-by-Pay" mechanism (obviously must have high speed access) and wireless between the server and the robot (the concept of having a robot with a mini-cam and wireless isn't a new one -- I've still got that idea planned for one I had wanted to build except I think I fried the CPU chip on the robot).

So the idea -- and I think this is what JP was alluding to (I might be wrong) -- is what if that computer gets compromised, particularly from a nation that has no extradiction treaty? Is there a potential that this now can be used for malicious purposes where literally someone can get away with murder. (There are realistic geographical limitations to this obvious -- at least at this point. Maybe a flying robot might open the potential for larger geographical regions).

Now, you may think I'm being fanciful but what if (that's the important two words in security) someone decided to open these up around the world so that "hunters" could get the opportunity to hunt in places like Russia, China, etc. or even in a simple manner, all 50 of the US states and every major US city. at far less costs, hassle, etc. And they used robots (maybe with a special feedback rifle the user would use at home that has a sensor) in a fashion as described above. The parameters are changed now, all from a simple single idea. (the atom bomb also started from a simple idea IIRC).

Is there a risk? Oh ya. My "malicious" side says that if I wanted to -- using this setup -- I could access this site from a remote location, use a stolen credit card and kill a president. A less extreme example would be to bump off someone who pissed me off. Road rage wouldn't be a problem anymore; internet rage, however, would be the new "GTA" fad. How would people really know the difference with technology today?

The issue isn't guns (Keep in mind, I'm not a gun supporter and believe that many Americans insult their own armed forces by crying out for the 2nd Amendement as a shield -- but that's my opinion).

The issue isn't using a robot in this fashion.

The issue isn't using the Internet in this fashion.

The issue is that the internet is so wide and uncontrolled these things will happen (this is a fact we have to accept, like it or not). And it will happen with little to no thought towards securing the server that will control "these things" (whatever ideas are brought out).

Since we are about security, shouldn't this idea bother us from a security point of view?

Anyways, I add this in as a something to think about.

These kind of flying robots, as you call them, already exist. The CIA for example used an UAV[1] armed with a Hellfire missile to assassinate Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi (alleged member of Al Qaeda) and 5 others on 3 November 2002.[2]

I'm afraid it's just a matter of time before people start compromising these machines (as has been done[3] with satellites).


[1]: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle: http://www.livingroom.org.au/uavblog/
[2]: http://www.livingroom.org.au/uavblog...edator_uav.php
[3]: http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib...Satellite.html

JP:

Yes.... I know he's going to do that..... But guess what... I have $5 that says that the quote your darling media put in there was incomplete......

The site is down right now but if you look he does talk about live animal hunting via the computer controlled guns when the fences are finished..... But it clearly specifies physically disabled people......

Read before you shout!!!!!!

[Edit]

Quote:

---

You're lucky I don't still run this place, that's all I have to say.

---

Methinks I can see poor widdle Johnnie's bottom lip a-quivering......

Man... You need to grow up......

[/Edit]

....and they say there isn't anything we can do about securing the border down south. ;)

Mathgirl, you most tolerant of the female species..............

Quote:

---

and they say there isn't anything we can do about securing the border down south

---

America goes south as far as the Rio Grande (well Texas wise)


Unfortunately, as happens in alluvial flood plains, you win a bit, you lose a bit..............

So Texas moves?

just a thought

Tiger Shark:

Quote:

---

The site is down right now but if you look he does talk about live animal hunting via the computer controlled guns when the fences are finished..... But it clearly specifies physically disabled people......

---

How does he know that those that use this service over the Internet are physically disabled?

Ms. M: Come now.... He'd be far from the first trusting person on the internet to believe that if he puts a service up there no-one will abuse it.....

The whole point really is that this is no different to any of the other shooting ranges in the world nor is it's future intent any different from any of the "ranches" that have been in existence for years, (except possibly it might allow some people to do something, (legal), they want to but are unable to do without such assistance).

JP got his knickers in a bunch without thinking about the concept as a whole, (probably, as he likes to keep telling us, because he once knew a police officer who therefore must know something about weapons). Hack the computer all you like.... I'll guarantee that the equipment holding the rifle has physical stops in both elevation and bearing. I know for a fact that the weapon has a safety catch and a removable magazine and I know for a fact that the actuators required to move the equipment and fire the weapon require their own power supply independent of the PC. So hack away.... The computer can only fire when it is allowed to by the human being that is stood there managing it.

Guns are not the problem..... People are the problem.... I handled a _really_ big gun, (7.62 long), almost every day for 5 years and never caused any harm that I wasn't legally allowed to cause with it and never had an ND, (Negligent Discharge).

As far a computer security goes this subject is less relevant than phishing.....and thank you for moving this dross to Cosmos where it belongs....

I bet the first person to try and kill someone with it will be some anti-gun idiot who is trying too show what someone else could do ;) Or some anti gun person saying "See I told you it would happen".

we can send some also some AO senior members there to pratice aim :)

I don't need practice, I've used sniper **** before.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by gore
I don't need practice, I've used sniper **** before.

---

I think that he meant send them over as targets...

Either way is fine.

Heh, this gave me an idiea though. I can hardly wait for a Gentoo convention in Texas now. Buahahaha.

Quote:

---

I handled a _really_ big gun, (7.62 long),

---

Would that be the infamous 'one bullet, two people, one house, two cars, two more people and a block of flats' SLR. British Army issue, until the SA80 POS arrived ?

A classic example of overkill in a single rifle.
Range was 600+ metres, and it didn't care what it went through to get that far :)

Quote:

---

Would that be the infamous 'one bullet, two people, one house, two cars, two more people and a block of flats' SLR. British Army issue, until the SA80 POS arrived ?

---

I dont know about you foxy, but if this government ever get so desperate, that they nead to call up an older ;) fart like me. They can shove the SA80 up there arse. I want an SLR. If i miss the buggers at 600 yards at least i can put the fear of god into them :D .............You ever heard a 50 round go past? The crack of doom comes to mind.

Maybe that's because the damn thing is as big as a dildo?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by gore
I bet the first person to try and kill someone with it will be some anti-gun idiot who is trying too show what someone else could do ;) Or some anti gun person saying "See I told you it would happen".

---

Now, I see the true Libertarian coming out.Step 4. Protect the Right to Self-Defense

The right to bear arms is one of the reasons we never were invaded during the cold war. If a nation tries to invade good luck, with these sniper rifles (aKa deer rifles) held by a great majority of Americans.

Though, I don't approve, I think by TX, law this has to be safe. Personally, I think it's a joke, not to mention it lacks respect to firearms period, which I'm a firm believer in.

Quote:

---

A classic example of overkill in a single rifle.

---

Poppycock Sir, utter poppycock...... ;)

I had a friend in the Falklands who was working shall we say "forward" who decided that an AR-15, (IIRC, one of the M16 types), would be handy because of it's lightness. After coming upon a unit of Argentinian SF ahd being compromised as they moved in to attack, (it was bad kuck, one of them was going for a pee), he was charged by an Argie with an FN. He described the incident somewhat as follows:-

This big bastard comes over the wall at full tilt firing at me as he ran. I dropped to a knee and hit him dead center of the chest at 15 yards, he kept coming and firing... I hit the ****er twice more dead center and he was still coming.... I dunno how he was missing but he was and he was real close so I stood up pushed my gat at his face and started pulling the trigger... he went down right at my feet. I looked around, picked up his FN, grabbed his ammo, ditched the piece of crap I had and moved on.......

I've seen a man hit in the chest with the SLR at close range. The hole in his back takes a rolled up combat jacket to fill..... My mates first shot would have gutted the argie had he been using an SLR.

I'll take 7.62 over 5.56 any day.... and as for through 2 poeple, a car a house etc.... an SLR round, like all rounds, shatters upon direct impact with solid objects or is diverted off course and loses energy rapidly afterwards if it glances off a solid object. The SLR will remain intact through a car windshield sufficiently to do it's job. It will do the same through a car door as long as it doesn't hit any of the mechanism. It will punch through hollow 9" concrete construction blocks but you really need to be leaning against then on the other side to me severely wounded by the resulting damaged round. Yes, a 7.62 goes a long way and it maintains a high level of energy for a considerable portion of that distance, but don't ever be fooled into thinking that it's more powerful or dangerous than simple physics dictates..... ;)

AR-15 is a "cute" gun.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tiger Shark

I've seen a man hit in the chest with the SLR at close range. The hole in his back takes a rolled up combat jacket to fill..... My mates first shot would have gutted the argie had he been using an SLR.

I'll take 7.62 over 5.56 any day.... and as for through 2 poeple, a car a house etc.... an SLR round, like all rounds, shatters upon direct impact with solid objects or is diverted off course and loses energy rapidly afterwards if it glances off a solid object. The SLR will remain intact through a car windshield sufficiently to do it's job. It will do the same through a car door as long as it doesn't hit any of the mechanism. It will punch through hollow 9" concrete construction blocks but you really need to be leaning against then on the other side to me severely wounded by the resulting damaged round. Yes, a 7.62 goes a long way and it maintains a high level of energy for a considerable portion of that distance, but don't ever be fooled into thinking that it's more powerful or dangerous than simple physics dictates..... ;)

---

"I'll take 7.62 over 5.56 any day.... " Yeah, TShark, you're not the only one with that opinion, SOCOM Speaks I just received this email from military.com the other day about the new alternative to the (saw) Squad Automatic Weapon and its trials.

All the "you're all morons, I'm never posting here again" bullshit aside: Congressman Tom Davis dropped a bill that makes internet hunting punishable by up to five years in prison. (source: internetnews.com).

There's no mention of the security aspect of hunting over the internet. Instead, the argument is given that internet hunting is not a sport:

Quote:

---

Davis again insisted Internet-assisted hunting is not a sport.

"As a number of hunting and gun-owner groups have pointed out, 'fair chase' is a basic element of hunting. You have to be there, in the field, not sitting behind a computer screen," he said.

---

Another useless law to appease the masses.

I just heard on NPR the other day that they just did the first hunt. The guy (who was paralyzed from the neck down) had a good time but was not able to kill anything...

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by mathgirl32
....and they say there isn't anything we can do about securing the border down south. ;)

---

The only good post in this whole thread. :thumbsup: