“But the thread title is misleading, Holder was talking about high-tech safety technology not tracking devices.”
You’ve got that all wrong. Note where the article says, “the gun talks to a bracelet....” In order for the gun to “talk” to a bracelet, the gun and/or the bracelet must transmit and/or receive radio frequency waves. Think of a Bluetooth device for example. Such FCC regulated devices can have their transmissions picked up by third parties, including snooping government surveillance. It matters not a whit that they claim the bracelet does not work like a felon’s GPS bracelet, because the system can still be tracked by unauthorized or unwanted parties. Furthermore, it also serves as the camel’s nose under the tent. Once the step is taken to compromise anonymity and personal security to that extent, it becomes that much easier to go before a Federal court to argue precedents have already granted permission for such surveillance activities.
So, take another look at that article and read it closely for its all too obvious implications in line with the intentionally provocative headline.
Ok, I stand corrected. However, I’m still not concerned about anything that douche-muffin Holder has to say. Thankfully he is very incompetent at his job.
If the gun has to receive a RF authorization signal from a bracelet in order to fire then what happens when the RF signal gets jammed?