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 Anyhow, with our modern food-distributing facilities (yey Walmart et al) that function of a gun is totally outdated, and, in my opinion, should not be taken into account in this debate.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?